EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:10 pm Hi Becky666,

I couldn't agree with you more. Having had my own SRS procedure 7 months ago, I feel very much the same way as you.

While being a part of a very small minority, I'm the last person who will put anybody down or criticize them for their beliefs or feelings, but to me, anyone who wants to look the part of the opposite gender from what they were born physically and yet has the desire to retain their "birth parts" is NOT a transsexual, but rather a transgendered individual whether it be MTF or FTM. Try a few sessions with a gender therapist and I think you'll quickly find out the difference between a transsexual and a transgendered person.

Let's explore the definition of "transsexual" as defined by some who have a pretty good knowledge of the subject.

worldnet.princton.edu: a person who has undergone a sex change operation

ftmguide.org: An individual whose gender identity does not match the sex that was assigned to them at birth. Many transsexual people will seek hormonal and/or surgical treatment in order to bring their body into alignment with their gender identity.

ifsha.org: A person who believes that he or she is psychologically akin to the opposite gender and feels trapped in one’s biological sex. A transsexual may seek medical help to surgically change the genitals and other aspects of appearance to match the deeply felt internal gender identity. ...

I for one never had any love whatsoever for my "boy parts." Every time I stepped out of the shower and had to dry myself I would just cringe at the site of that thing hanging there. I would always think to myself "What is that thing and why is it there? It's not supposed to be there." For me, I'm ecstatic with the results of my SRS and have never been happier in my life. I now finally feel complete, both inside and out. For the first time in my life, I am finally one with myself.

For those out there that cannot have SRS due to health or financial reasons, I can truly understand your feelings and frustration. I was there for a half of a century myself. Now, after having completed the long road of transition with the cumulation of this journey being my SRS, I no longer look upon myself as a transsexual, but rather simply as a woman.

I know there are a number of people in this thread that aren't going to agree with me and that is most certainly their right, and I will not deny your right to classify yourself as anything you like, but I'm also going to exercise my right to express my own feelings on this topic.

Now I can agree with this post. If a person has a desire to keep their birth parts, as you put, than they do not desire to be the opposite gender. And the language of the other two posts, one saying "many", but not "all", and the other saying "may", but not "will".

There are those who have a strong desire, like myself, but just simply do not have a way to do it, as of yet. Others have not transitioned for health reasons or to save a marriage. The clinical definition only requires the desire to become the opposite gender.

So it seems we are in agreement.

Elizabeth

Perhaps it is easier if we think of anatomical sex, gender and identity separately.

Anatomical sex (male, female, intersex). Cissexuals do not wish to change their anatomical sex; transsexuals do. Transsexuals therefore suffer anatomical dysphoria of varying degree. Some transsexuals cannot change their sex, e.g. due to health issues, lack of money. Some cissexuals are forced to change their anatomical sex e.g. estrogens for prostate cancer, androgens for endometriosis.

Gender role (man, woman, bigendered, non-gendered, etc). Gender roles are patterns of behaviour associated statistically with people of particular anatomical sex at birth. For example, the majority of the population are male men and female women. Such people are cisgender. Transgender people wish to live in gender roles other than those statistically associated with their anatomical sex at birth.

This creates four possibilities (CS/CG, CS/TG, TS/CG, TS/TG).

For example, a person who is male in anatomical sex at birth may be:

Cissexual cisgender. Take no action to change physical characteristics and present as a man.

Cissexual transgender. Take no action to change physical characteristics, but present as a woman, i.e. non-op, non-hormone through choice rather than health or financial constraints.

Transsexual cisgender. Change physical sex through the use of hormones and/or surgery, if permitted by health and finances, but continue to present as a man. This category would include those who wish to change physical sex, but cannot do so for whatever reason e.g health/finances. (The defining characteristic is the intent rather than the act). This category may find it hard to obtain surgery without the Real Life Experience. I suspect that this category was over-represented among Dr Kimmel's patients.

Transsexual transgender. Change physical sex through the use of hormones and/or surgery, if permitted by health and finances, but present as a woman. Again, this category would include those who wish to change physical sex, but cannot do so for whatever reason e.g health/finances.

Gender identity is one's own belief, "I am a man / a woman / androgyne, etc". A cisidentified person would hold the belief statistically associated with their anatomical sex at birth, a transidentified person would hold a different belief. Whereas being TS or TG leads one to action, i.e. change physical sex or behave in a particular way, being TI does not.

Multiplying our original four possibilities by two, we get a total of eight possibilities. CS/CG/CI, CS/CG/TI, CS/TG/CI, CS/TG/TI, TS/CG/CI, TS/CG/TI, TS/TG/CI, TS/TG/TI. Within each of the trans categories, there are different degrees of intensity (the magnitude of the difference between one's own status and the relevant cis-status) and dysphoria (the distress provoked by such difference, ranging from zero to severe).

Insofar as being TS or TG leads one to action, one faces risks (medical for the former, social for the latter). Surely it is a matter of prudence to take the least risky action that is sufficient to be happy. For example a person who needs full SRS, who can afford it and for whom there are no medical contraindications, ought to undergo full SRS. But a person for whom orchiectomy is sufficient to relieve anatomical dysphoria (such as myself) has nothing to gain by taking the risks of full SRS.

I am TS/CG/TI, but I enjoy interacting with members of the other seven groups on this board. Thanks for reading!

Funnily enough, some of the shallow individuals are starting to show their true colours.

Technically since sex is a function of your chromosomes and genes, none of you who've had the op done are still female in sex, so stop being hypocritical. Having a penis or not does not decide your gender. Do you understand what GID is? It is when your gender identity does not match your sex, hence making one transsexed. To be as dense to insist that only people who are insecure to the point that they MUST have the op done are transsexuals is narrow minded, ignorant, and superficial. I have no problems with anyone who chooses to get the op done because they want it as a nice little bonus, but honestly, anyone saying that only people who want an op to even be able to live is like a woman insisting that any flat chested woman who doesnt want a boob job is not a "real" woman. Hypocritical considering that MtF post-ops are still male by genetic sex.

Also it seems that the "OMG PENIS HATE" individuals here do not understand that non-ops do not WANT to keep their penis out of a love for it. I don't love or hate what I have, because I've never been bothered about the insignificant, superficial things. More importantly, I AM disgusted by what I mentioned before, the whole "oh look at me i've had the op" tone of superiority in the words of some individuals. It sounds just like the KKK insisting that black people aren't "real" people just because of something superficial.

If I really wanted to be nasty I'd just point out that not only do I naturally pass, I am a darned sight hotter than many of those "im a real woman because i've had so much work done" types. I don't have a problem knowing that I'm a woman when I go to sleep at night just because I was given the wrong genitals not by choice. So what if they're wrong? The most important organ of ANY woman is in me: the female brain. Sure you can raise definitions from this or that place but lets not forget homosexuality was once officially defined as a mental disease. So, your point being?

Honestly those in here screaming about genitals deciding if one's TS are as good as those once mired in a whole bunch of other ignorant beliefs such as the earth being flat, the earth being at the center of the solar system, black people being inferior, women being inferior etc. Lets face it, not too long ago people were insisting "real" women were born naturally with vaginas. Sounds familiar? "

becky666 (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:46 am If you have a penis and you want to keep it, you are not a woman.

" <- technically whoever said this is not a woman either. This person is a man with an artificial vagina and cock chopped off. This person's chromosomes are still XY. If this person wishes to play the bigot game, I would ask that this person remember that not too long ago other bigots with the same sort of anal behaviour were actively trying to stop this person from enjoying the operation that this person has enjoyed. As I said, it's pure hypocrisy.

Yes we all have a right to express our beliefs, but technically so do transphobes, homophobes, racists and sexists. What good did they do besides propagate wrongful beliefs that harmed others? The question you should ask yourself is what good does YOUR misguided ego/pride in believing only you are "real" transsexuals or "real" women because you wanted yr bits altered do for others?

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 pm Now I can agree with this post. If a person has a desire to keep their birth parts, as you put, than they do not desire to be the opposite gender. And the language of the other two posts, one saying "many", but not "all", and the other saying "may", but not "will".

There are those who have a strong desire, like myself, but just simply do not have a way to do it, as of yet. Others have not transitioned for health reasons or to save a marriage. The clinical definition only requires the desire to become the opposite gender.

So it seems we are in agreement.

Elizabeth

What about those ambivalent about getting their birth parts removed? Like a girl who has an ugly nose but doesn't go for a nose job, or a girl with a flat chest but doesn't go for a boob job?

I don't have a strong desire to keep them but neither do I have a strong desire to remove them, however that does not detract from my gender identity. Isn't who we are inside more important? So how would you answer to this?

"

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 pm The clinical definition only requires the desire to become the opposite gender

" isn't this wrong? If you were born with the female gender and the male sex, wanting

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 pm to become the opposite gender

means you want to be a man in gender as well as in sex. The desire is immaterial to the gender identity. The gender identity is not even entirely responsible for wanting to be the opposite sex. Granted there would be a degree of dysphoria with the sex of the body, but I think it's safe to say that part of that dysphoria comes from social conditioning which teaches us to "want" to fit in and belong. True yes? If you grew up completely isolated I think it is safe to hedge that you would probably have instinctively felt female and there is a high chance u could simply assume that the parts you were born with are the right ones for the gender since there is nobody there constantly telling you what set of genitals belong to what gender.

Truthfully, the current definitions are lacking and it is time to accept that they are now obselete as laws that once criminalised homosexuality once were.

Of course, ultimately you know that most of those who adhere rigidly to the set of beliefs that you and several others hold belong to different generation, and that my generation is getting our foot in the door, and more and more MtF transsexuals are understanding what truely makes them women. It is only a matter of time before the definitions are changed and our belief becomes the mainstream. It is inevitable. The question is, do you want to be remembered as an enlightened visionary, or would you prefer your legacy to be in the same vein as the female-oppressive, anti-blacks, anti-gay, anti-trans bigots?

nullorchis (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:35 am For Becky666 for a M-F transition removal of male genitals are necessary to be a complete transsexual.

To others, such alterations are not necessary.

I say, to each his or her own choice. Whatever makes you feel complete, go for it.

And try to be understanding and accepting of what makes other people feel complete.

Not just tolerant, but understanding and accepting.

Sad thing is, I can understand and accept. As far as I am concerned, everyone who is female gendered is a woman, whatever they SUPERFICIALLY have between their damned legs. I'm certainly not the one who's playing the exclusion game here. The problem is, I wonder if they feel their feminity threatened by those of us who have been able to enjoy our true identity with a much lesser degree of heartache and pain? Or do they just, like so many people in general, not just transsexuals, love to be part of a self-propagated "exclusive" crowd to gain that sense of self-superiority necessary to boost insecurities hidden deep down inside? I call it the "in-crowd syndrome". Were it not for the fact that such people actually cause unnecessary harm to the community and to other individuals already struggling to find and understand themselves, I would actually feel sorry for them. These are the same individuals who would take offence at being told they're not woman because their vaginas aren't "real" (an ignorant superficiality!) and yet would commit the very same sin towards their fellow transsexuals based on ANOTHER, equally ignorant superficiality. If that is not hypocrisy I don't know what is. I honestly suspect that part of their self-identity is so shakey and insecure that only thru discrimination can they justify why they're more "real" than others.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:51 am What about those ambivalent about getting their birth parts removed? Like a girl who has an ugly nose but doesn't go for a nose job, or a girl with a flat chest but doesn't go for a boob job?

I don't have a strong desire to keep them but neither do I have a strong desire to remove them, however that does not detract from my gender identity. Isn't who we are inside more important? So how would you answer to this?

"

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 pm The clinical definition only re

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:51 am quires the desire to become the opposite gender

" isn't this wrong? If you we

re born with the female gende

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:51 am r and the male sex, wanting

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 pm to become the opposite gender

means you want to be a man in gender as well as in sex. The desire is immaterial to the gender identity. The gender identity is not even entirely responsible for wanting to be the opposite sex. Granted there would be a degree of dysphoria with the sex of the body, but I think it's safe to say that part of that dysphoria comes from social conditioning which teaches us to "want" to fit in and belong. True yes? If you grew up completely isolated I think it is safe to hedge that you would probably have instinctively felt female and there is a high chance u could simply assume that the parts you were born with are the right ones for the gender since there is nobody there constantly telling you what set of genitals belong to what gender.

Truthfully, the current definitions are lacking and it is time to accept that they are now obselete as laws that once criminalised homosexuality once were.

Of course, ultimately you know that most of those who adhere rigidly to the set of beliefs that you and several others hold belong to different generation, and that my generation is getting our foot in the door, and more and more MtF transsexuals are understanding what truely makes them women. It is only a matter of time before the definitions are changed and our belief becomes the mainstream. It is inevitable. The question is, do you want to be remembered as an enlightened visionary, or would

you prefer your legacy to be in the same vein as the female-oppressive, anti-blacks, anti-gay, anti-trans bigots?

I do not believe we are in as much disagreement as you might think. I am pretty sure in my post I stipulated that what I had stated was the clinical definition of GID. "Transsexual" means "to change sex". I consider adrongenous to be a separate gender from male or female, but the DSM-IV does not. Nor does any legal authority. In our society one is either male or female from a legal standpoint.

I personally believe I am transsexual. I can't say about anyone else. Only they know. After all, psychiatrists don't tell us we are GID. We tell them. All transsexuality is self diagnosed. That automatically means it's going to mean different things to different people. I am all inclusive. I believe it's an outrage that I need anyone's permission to alter my body. Michael Jackson certainly didn't need anyone's permission and look what he did to himself? But if it makes him happy? What do I care? I don't believe I need to be protected from me.

My main point was that there are lots of people that believe they are transsexual, which determines who is and who is not transsexual, that are never going to transition. I never intended it to dis-include anyone that identifies as having GID or not, that wishes to express their feelings of gender in an unconventional way. I don't see anyone as being more transsexual or less transsexual. Because only each person can know what course of action is going to be best for them, given their circumstances.

Elizabeth

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am Funnily enough, some of the shallow individuals are starting to show their true colours.

To whom are you making reference to with this statement? Does this apply only to me or to anyone who dares to disagree with you?

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am Technically since sex is a function of your chromosomes and genes, none of you who've had the op done are still female in sex, so stop being hypocritical. Having a penis or not does not decide your gender. Do you understand what GID is?

I will agree with you on the function of one's chromosomes and the role that genetics plays and yes, I'm quite familiar with GID considering I've suffered with it long before you were even born.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am To be as dense to insist that only people who are insecure to the point that they MUST have the op done are transsexuals is narrow minded, ignorant, and superficial.

WOW, sorry I chose to disagree with you. I guess in your own narrow mind that qualifies me for your insult.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am Honestly those in here screaming about genitals deciding if one's TS are as good as those once mired in a whole bunch of other ignorant beliefs such as the earth being flat, the earth being at the center of the solar system, black people being inferior, women being inferior etc. Lets face it, not too long ago people were insisting "real" women were born naturally with vaginas. Sounds familiar? "

becky666 (imported) wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:46 am If you have a penis and you want to keep it, you are not a woman.

"

Oh, pleassse! Aren't you taking my comments a bit out of context? My comments had nothing to do with the question of being a woman or not. It pertained to the whole

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am idea of being transsexual and the definition of the term.

Also it seems that the "OMG PENIS HATE" individuals here do not understand that non-ops do not WANT to keep their penis out of a love for it. I don't love or hate what I have, because I've never been bothered about the insignificant, superficial things. More importantly, I AM disgusted by what I mentioned before, the whole "oh look at me i've had the op" tone of superiority in the words of some individuals. It sounds just like the KKK insisting that black people aren

't "real" people just because of something superficial.

Take a good long look in your mirror before you accuse anyone of being superficial. You just might resemble that remark yourself.

The whole tone of your remarks and rebuttal, have a very masculine approach to them, which makes me wonder a great deal about your statement about having a "female brain."

I'm glad for you that you pass so well as a female. I did too when I was your age and still do to this day with very little facial work besides my hair transplant and a minor lip lift. Let's wait for another 30 years and see if

punkypink (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:21 am this still holds true. If it does, the more power to you.

This person is a man with an artificial vagina and cock chopped off. This person's chromosomes are still XY. If this person wishes to play the bigot game, I would ask that this person remember that not too long ago other bigots with the same sort of anal behaviour were actively trying to stop this person from enjoying the operation that t

his person has enjoyed. As I said, it's pure hypocrisy.

I would imagine that from your point of view, I qualify for this statement that I'm nothing more than a man who's had his cock chopped off, yet you consider yourself a transsexual even with your love for your "boy parts." Look who's playing the role of bigot now!

At least I have a vagina, through it may be artificial, it has all the appearance and sensation of the real thing.

From your whole attitude and approach and based on the way you feel the need to lash out at anyone that does not share your opinion on this topic, it would appear that being known as a transsexual is very very very important to you. So go ahead and consider yourself anything you want to be. Feel free to keep the term transsexual and use it. I feel I've outgrown it anyway and that it really doesn't apply to me anymore.

Enjoy and I'm so sorry having expressed my opinion within your thread. I'll be careful not to enter your kingdom again.

What we seem to have here is “Traditionalists,” who want to maintain a clear sex/gender dichotomy, and the “Modernists,” who view sex and gender as much more multi-faceted, talking past one another.

Traditionalists make up the large majority of society, whatever subject is brought forward. Their views on sex and gender can be summed up by Richard Dunphy:

We inhabit a culture which seems to revolve around fixed categories, opposites, and which seems much less comfortable with ambiguity, change, blurs … on the issue of gender and sexual binaries, a great deal of cultural, political and emotional effort and energy has been vested in constructing, reproducing, and sustaining certain opposing categories. (Sexual Politics. Edinbugh University Press, 2001, page 3)

The Modernists, on the other hand, are moving away from fixed categories:

The ultimate thing is to have the option of being fluid … the thing is we’re moving to a much softer and more loose, but finely grained, gendered system.

–––Kate N’Ha Ysabet

Over the course of the past few years, I’ve moved from being a Traditionalist to being somewhere out on the far end of the Modernist perspective. Below is from a very nice piece by Surya Monro. Other than a brief conversation that I had with her, she doesn’t seem to know much about eunuchs, other than the Hijra of India where she did some brief field research. However, I think she explains the Modernist view far better than I’ve been able to articulate it myself. This is slightly rewritten and condensed from her listing of various challenges that reality makes to the Traditionalist view:

1) Intersex, which disrupts the binary system on two levels: on a physical level, as the various conditions subsumed under the umbrella term of intersex involve physiological characteristics (for example chromosomal, hormonal and gonadal) which are other than those conventionally associated with males and females; and in terms of identity, as research contributions show that in some cases intersex people wish to have an identity that is other, or in addition to, male or female.

2) People who are born as male or female but seek to identify as androgynous, third, fourth, or other sexes or genders, or as non-gendered.

3) “Third space” as opposed to “third sex or gender.” “Third space” allows for the articulation of various gendered identities, without these identities being solidified into clear categories.

4) Gender fluidity amongst trans people during the period that they are changing sex. Some have clearly stated that they feel more like a man some days and more like a woman on others.

5) Fluidity amongst other gender diverse people, including drag kings and queens, cross-dressers and transvestites.

6) Transsexuality as a space beyond gender binarisms.

7) “Gender fuck,” which refers to conflicting sex/gender signals. In some cases these are consciously taken on as part of identity. Kate N'Ha Ysabet explained that:

If I have a penis and big tits that’s gender fuck. If I wore makeup and butch clothing that’s gender fuck. And what’s quite interesting is that androgyny is acceptable because there’s a reason for that, but gender fuck isn’t, because people go ‘oh OK’ but with gender fuck its this thing of ‘shit, I’m getting two sets of signals’ and it feels like you’re having a drum and bass mix on one side and classical music on the other and you’re going ‘Oh my God which am I going to listen to?’

8) “Gender queer”: this is any type of trans identity that is not always male or female. It is where people feel they are a mixture of male and female.

9) Non-gendered people – people who refuse to be defined in a gendered way.

10) Intentional eunuchs, who may or may not have sexual reasons for their castration.

11) Multiple genders (sometimes called “gender pluralism”). This is where an individual has a number of differently gendered personalities, and is non-pathological.

12) Unintentional gender variance following surgical removal of gonads or genitals due to illness, e.g., a prostate cancer survivor identifying as a eunuch.

ADAPTED FROM: Monro, Surya. Gender Politics. 2005, London: Pluto Press, pp. 12-14.

Thank you EricaAnn for being astute and keeping things calm. I wont address the person yelling at everyone but I would like to address the last poster about the "traditionalists" vs "modernists" thread';

I have to say that Im a hard core pragmatic realist. I dont believe in imaginary things (from bigfoot to jesus), I dont believe in astrology or the power of crystals. I dont believe homeopathy is better than medicine nor that new age spiritualism can conquer science.

In the last few decades people have really turned up the chatter amongst themselves and each other about these things and if you listen to the talk while holding firmly to the facts (i.e. crystals cant make you have better luck for instance. They just cant), you will hear a commonality among the phrasing and terminology. It becomes transparent that a lot of extremely irrational things are being wrapped up in a lot of pseudo-intellectual babble to try and sell it to the gullible. At the end of the day though, crystals wont make you have better luck. They just wont.

2+2=4 and thats all there is to that. You can talk to me about the flexibility of the perception of the end user or how the intangible complexity of the human condition allows for all of us to feel however we want to about the equation but at the end of the day, the correct answer to the equation is 4 and any other answer given is incorrect.

To me, though gender may be a continuum with many people in the middle, the middle is still the anomaly. Whether its an accident of nature that got you there or an extremity of fetishism that got you there or mental illness that got you there, the norm is to be at least close to one side or the other and more importantly, happy to be on that side and not uncomfortable with your gender. To the point like the rest of the world is where gender isnt an issue at all (one of the reasons non-GID people have so hard of a time trying to grasp our predicament). Im not talking about fitting in with mainstream society here, Im talking about the reality of normality vs anomalous. It is anomalous to be transgendered or IS or any other thing that isnt a reasonable and qualitative example of male or female. To pretend otherwise is delusional. You can talk about chromosomes and say that the whole jig is up based on that and thats fine if you want to bring the whole house of cards down but the reality is that that may one day be changeable. What then? What about those who say reproductive ability is the qualifier? The jig is up for all of us saying we're women if thats the bottom line criteria. But one day a womb transplant will be real. What then? 100 years ago, people having a discussion like this would have said breasts or a vagina are the qualifiers and of course now, they arent hard to get. My side of the argument is that whatever is currently the place we can get to is the place where being a woman is for those of us born men and anyone who doesnt do the basics just isnt there. It harms the word woman and it even harms the word transsexual to use either word in reference to yourself while wagging your ding ding around, figuratively or literally.

It may be anomalous to be tg or even ts but it is norm to be woman (after transition). I not only treasure that fact for myself but hold it dear to those whove been before me or who will come after.

I dont dare to look down or cast aspersion on those who happily live in the middle and I never meant my post to be a polarizing one (though I knew it might hit that way) but I do firmly believe that you simply cannot be a woman if you have a penis. I would put the line of demarcation on "intent" though Im aware that intent can be used in conjunction with excuses for decades by those who really dont know what its like to have to transition or die and just like the drama of it (shame).

The "modernist" approach to gender is one Im very familiar with. I actually hid in that facade for awhile while I got my head around the enormity of real transition. Ive read dozens and dozens of books on the subject and studied until Ive understood every nuance of the subject and at the end of the day, the modernist approach (to me) is another in a long line of post-fact reality-bending-until-I-Like-It New Age-isms that I think help many marginalists feel better about themselves (which Im all for, if it werent for the delusions it propels) but also hurts the people who have actually gone the distance and done what they had to do.

"Girls" who wag their wieners around in the bedroom, on camera or on boards like this give the rest of us a bad name and the funny thing is that many of them end up where I am when they get tired of pretending that 2+2=5.

As for me, I never posted to this board before a couple days ago when I randomly read the post that got me mad and I wont be posting again. Shame on me for going into an area like this where a lot of fetishists and people playing fantasy games with their gender roles call their own and start taking people to task for not understanding the HBSOC or the DSMIV. That is stupid on my part. I just read a post where someone was trying to spout off about facts and sound knowledgeable while spreading misinformation and that got me going. I do apologize to anyone Ive upset.

For what its worth I dont just blend, Im stealth and Ive been a model off and on for years. I have a hunky 6 and a half foot tall fireman for a husband. His family doesnt know my past nor do my coworkers who I talk to and hug and laugh with every day or the new friends Ive made since transition or the men who hit on me all the time at work.

There are a lot of us that dont blend in well. I know that and I do feel sorry for those with passing issues. Its a cheap shot to say you pass better than some post ops because without something to cover up your reality, your dick dont pass the test. My pussy does. Even up close and even wrapped around your dick. And so do the pussies of all of the other post ops who have opted to stop pretending and get on with their lives (with a pussy).

Ive never been jealous of a tg before in my life though Ive been jealous of many women. My mother who loves me. My sister who loves me. All of the women on the planet who can have babies and I never will be able to.

Ive felt jealousy many times but not ever towards someone with a dick. Im almost 20 years older than you and Im prettier than you without makeup or clothes (directed squarely at the yeller)

Sorry for the level stooping and carry on

becky

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm To whom are you making reference to with this statement? Does this apply only to me or to anyone who dares to disagree with you?

It applies to anyone who has been espousing the shallow view of "genitals maketh the woman" =)

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm I will agree with you on the function of one's chromosomes and the role that genetics plays and yes, I'm quite familiar with GID considering I've suffered with it long before you were even born.

There is no doubt that a great deal of homophobic people have actually been in denial and struggled with their sexuality far longer than others who have been able to accept it. Your point would be? This is exactly a demonstration of the whole "seniority" game. Just because you've struggled with it far longer does not mean you had access to the new developments on the subject.

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm WOW, sorry I chose to disagree with you. I guess in your own narrow mind that qualifies me for your insult.

I am pointing out facts and observations, how is that an insult?

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm Oh, pleassse! Aren't you taking my comments a bit out of context? My comments had nothing to do with the question of being a woman or not. It pertained to the whole

idea of being transsexual and the definition of the term.

1) Not everything is aimed at you, I'm talking about those who espouse the "genitals maketh the woman" view in general. Why would you feel its entirely directed at you?

2) The term "transsexual" is wrongly defined at the moment with too much emphasis being on the medical and the physical, which is what I've been pointing out. We might as well make "tiny boobs, crooked nose, thin lips" all medical problems as well and flog plastic surgery as the cure-all. Just as I will not insist nobody needs SRS to be comfortable with being a woman inside, I will also insist that for many people able to see beyond the superficial, being a woman is not purely about what genitals one have. We ARE transsexed because 1stly, we had to transition in some way, to a certain degree, to be socially acknowledge as who we are, and 2ndly there is the small matter of a non-matching sex with the gender.

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm Take a good long look in your mirror before you accuse anyone of being superficial. You just might resemble that remark yourself.

The whole tone of your remarks and rebuttal, have a very masculine approach to them, which makes me wonder a great deal about your statement about having a "female brain."

I'm glad for you that you pass so well as a female. I did too when I was your age and still do to this day with very little facial work besides my hair transplant and a minor lip lift. Let's wait for another 30 years and see if

this still holds true. If it does, the more power to you.

Hardly. Once again with that statement you only show how little you understand of what makes a person female gendered. Are you now accusing a cisgendered cis-sexed women who has a masculine approach, of not having a female brain and not being a woman? Funny because gender is an instinctive identity for most, and is distinct from personality (which can be masculine, feminine or androygnous). We have women who are masculine in nature(aka tomboys) we have women who are feminine in nature and we have women who are androygnous in nature. By your logic, only feminine women are women and you suspect that they have a female brain? I've always made it known that I'm a tomboy. What makes me female is not my personality, but my instinctive identity. Thats what makes me wary of the "old sch" who say that to be a woman you have to behave a certain way, look a certain way etc. That demonstrates a non-comprehensive, superficial understanding of gender. Ok maybe that is because you grew up in a different era, and even being trans and having GID didn't mean the community understood it as we do now either, but isn't that the same sort of justification given by racists, sexists, homophobes etc?

Oh on a side note, I don't really care about the looks. Whether someone passes better or worse does not make them any less of a woman in my eyes. I am just pointing out that the superficial card is not worth playing, look at how you and becky scrambled desperately to talk about how well you can pass too without work etc. That was the purpose of the theoratical statement. Anyone confident in their own identity will feel no need to care too much about looks and anyone confident in their own looks will feel no need to defend it when tossed an insignificant theoratical question in an online argument.

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm I would imagine that from your point of view, I qualify for this statement that I'm nothing more than a man who's had his cock chopped off, yet you consider yourself a transsexual even with your love for your "boy parts." Look who's playing the role of bigot now!

At least I have a vagina, through it may be artificial, it has all the appearance and sensation of the real thing.

You will have to forgive me if this paragraph made me laugh. 1stly, you're not reading. As far as MY point of view is concerned, I personally do not believe that you are a man because ,as I said, I don't give a damn about the superficial, I certainly don't give a damn about your chromosomes. You're female-identified in mind and to me that is what makes you a girl. However I AM saying that as you believe that gender is dependent on the superficial, so do others who ALSO believe that gender is dependent on the superficial have the belief about you.

Look at how much that statement irks you, to the point that you've not fully comprehended what I've said! =) Sometimes you should stop and spare a thought for what you might be doing to other transsexuals who don't happen to suffer the same degree of dysphoria as you. Personally you don't bother me at all, since I'm confident in my identity, but what about others who do not have the same strength and conviction of their identity? Also, please note I do not actually love my boy parts. I've always made that clear, I hope that you're not just reading what you want to see so that you can stand on your moral pedestal just that bit easier.

EricaAnn (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:20 pm From your whole attitude and approach and based on the way you feel the need to lash out at anyone that does not share your opinion on this topic, it would appear that being known as a transsexual is very very very important to you. So go ahead and consider yourself anything you want to be. Feel free to keep the term transsexual and use it. I feel I've outgrown it anyway and that it really doesn't apply to me anymore.

Enjoy and I'm so sorry having expressed my opinion within your thread. I'll be careful not to enter your kingdom again.

As I mentioned above, I know who I am, being known as a transsexual is not the main reason I am expressing strong, almost dogmatic views on this. It is the prospect of other transsexuals who might otherwise be led to believe they aren't, and the prolongment of their period of confusion and being lost. As for whether the term applies to you or not, well, we know better don't we? =) But thats fine. The term transsexual as far as I am concerned, is descriptive anyway, and not my core identity. My core identity is the same as yours: female. ^^

Finally I do believe that you have not answered how expressing your exclusive beliefs is good for others. As far as I can see its purely to give you a moral boost and justify your own identity which you've probably wrongly associated too much with the superficial.