You... you mean Mr T is not about Snickers? MR T IS NOT ABOUT SNICKERS?!?!?!?

Anakin-esque NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO

*devistated*

Wait on that ONE thing it IS about the Snickers. Because there is NOTHING better then a smashed up frozen snickers on ice cream NOTHING! Well, wild love making on silk sheets but its CLOSE!!! Very Very close!

I pity the fool who doesn't believe that Mr T is all about the Snickers! And why they pulled the real Mr T from doing them is beyond me!

mrt (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:54 pm I think the term confuses people. Maybe I'm being simple but "transexual" seems to me to be a stage between one sex and the other and if a person who was born with guy parts going through all this trouble (hormones, Surgery etc) I think they ought to be simply women (or men if going the other way)

Yeah, it seems that there is a distinction between MTF transsexuals who want to be changed into women and those who want to remain in-between.

I'd suggest that those who remain in-between are driven more by lust and are actually in a similar category of objectification (I guess self-objectification) to those that admire/lust after them. That it why it is tempting to subscribe to the "autogynerotic" label for such transsexuals. I realize that most object to that category, but I have known transsexuals who seemed to fetishize themselves and I'm not sure that is psychologically healthy. Other transsexuals I know are fully "female" in their whole being and psychology. There is a big difference (in my humble opinion) between these types of transsexuals.

Sorry for all the labels, but at some level categorization is useful for understanding ...

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:20 am Yeah, it seems that there is a distinction between MTF transsexuals who want to be changed into women and those who want to remain in-between.

I'd suggest that those who remain in-between are driven more by lust and are actually in a similar category of objectification (I guess self-objectification) to those that admire/lust after them. That it why it is tempting to subscribe to the "autogynerotic" label for such transsexuals. I realize that most object to that category, but I have known transsexuals who seemed to fetishize themselves and I'm not sure that is psychologically healthy. Other transsexuals I know are fully "female" in their whole being and psychology. There is a big difference (in my humble opinion) between these types of transsexuals.

Sorry for all the labels, but at some level categorization is useful for understanding ...

Here is one who has no plans to PHYSICALLY become woman at least for the foreseeable future and what she has to say.

No, I am not remaining "in-between" as you so uncharitably term us because I am driven by lust. It is because I believe what makes me woman is who I am inside rather than what I have outside. By all purposes and intent, I expect, and am treated as a woman, and because that is my innate gender-identity, that is very much all I ask for. Any physical changes, I see as a bonus, not a must, if it happens.

Personally, I do not think there is a distinction between transwomen who need or do not need that physical change. Would you make such a distinction between women who are psychologically happy with having small boobs and women who HAVE to get a boob job done? End of the day they're all still women. In fact for cisgendered people, it is commonly regarded as being healthy in mind to be able to accept your own physical imperfections and not seek plastic surgery, so why is it reversed when it comes to transgendered persons and seen as unhealthy to not want surgery?

Yes, there are lots of fetishistic trans who make me question their motives too, but personally I feel they make up a very small percentage of the transcommunity(both the out and obvious transpeople, and the stealth transpeople). In fact, to counter your point, I'd like to point out what I believe to be an even more worrying trend that seems all to often to be glossed over: a LOT more transpeople are so lacking in their psychological identity or self-esteem/confidence that they seek to over-compensate through physical surgery. Is that what you consider psychologically healthy? I think that is worse than someone whose psychology is sound even if they seek to change nothing physical.

I won't even begin to mention the transpeople who would not seek to change anything physical if it wasn't for the majority of the community who has pushed an intolerant and polarised view of "if you don't want physical changes you're not one of us" onto the transcommunity. Given the need for acceptance by the community after being rejected by mainstream society, it is very easy to get bullied into conforming to a set view of what makes one a "true" transperson. Not everyone is as strong to say "bollocks" to that sort of misguided bias and maintain that the true distinct point of being a woman rests squarely on the psychological identity and anything physical is a bonus, not a pre-requisite.

So I have to disagree with you that there should be a distinction between transwomen who want or do not want physical changes. In fact, if there should be a distinction, it should be on one's motivations, regardless of the choice of action. I'd suggest it is a whole lot more important to be fully female in one's psychology than one's being, otherwise, a lot of pre and non-ops who ARE wholy female in psychology but not in being are being(no pun intended) unfairly and unkindly marginalised and invalidated by your suggestion.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am So I have to disagree with you that there should be a distinction between transwomen who want or do not want physical changes. In fact, if there should be a distinction, it should be on one's motivations, regardless of the choice of action. I'd suggest it is a whole lot more important to be fully female in one's psychology than one's being, otherwise, a lot of pre and non-ops who ARE wholy female in psychology but not in being are being(no pun intended) unfairly and unkindly marginalised and invalidated by your suggestion.

As usual, a very wise post from you. Humans always seem to want to create discrete pigeonholes for everything. They want to set clear boundaries and then name what fits inside. We are making a bit of progress in the areas of sex and gender, but there are STILL a great many out there (fortunately not many here on the Archive) who can think only in terms of "male" and "female" and not realize that each of those categories contains an incredible diversity. We can either continue to create new, and smaller, categories or recognize that categories are always artificial and distortions of reality.

Before I retired, I told every beginning anthropology class (and most of the more advanced ones as well) that a principal goal of the entire course was that they were to learn to "delight in the diversity of humanity!"

With the current revision process of the DSM, there is a very heated discussion going on among professional sex therapists as to whether or not "autogynephilia" ought to be a discrete category, separate from all other varieties of gender dysphoria. Some of the exchanges are nastier than most would imagine coming from "professional" psychologists and psychiatrists.

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:48 am We can either continue to create new, and smaller, categories or recognize that categories are always artificial and distortions of reality.

It is ironic that the borders between people get longer and longer the shorter we make our measuring stick. Hopefully one day the measuring stick will be so small and insignificant we will forget where we last set it down, and then we will see each other as we truly are.

Its difficult for me to comment because I'm not there but if I can suggest a (possibly) similar type of thing. When I made up my mind to have an orchiectomy to deal with my Orchialgia and atrophy part of the appeal was that once the removal part was done (Which wasn't the part I was 100% crazy about) the surgeon agreed to give me a new pair of replacements. Now, these are not "functional" I can't get testosterone from them or knock anyone up but I wanted the "look and feel" that goes with being male. When I talked to one rather famous surgeon who is more well known for doing SRS/GRS about doing this the comment was made "You would be my first male to MALE sex change" and maybe in a way this is how I see this as well. Pre op I was pretty pathetic in a visual way. And my old pair didn't function much better then my implants.

So, in a way I see myself as one of the folks that seeks the whole hormones, surgery type of thing. While I was researching the implants (And size IS important - I don't care what anyone says) and safety I met a number of men who had the same sort of situation who were very vocal about not "needing" this to feel male. Some were simply more worried about the possible health concern of having anything put in their bodies. Others seemed to me to be so "macho" they didn't need no stinkin badges!

I fully accept that what they decided to do (or not) but I also reserve the right to say I like my choice and am more then willing to share this with others and give them my two cents on safety and which implants feel "right" and hang well or whatever.

Emily am I tuned into the right wavelength here with you? I mean I'm totally cool with you and how you are doing your personal transition. I see GRS and hormones as being slightly more "conventional" and perhaps some of this is more for others in some cases. *Potential mates for example. On the other hand I think some TS people really do want this for themselves. The desire to use androgen blockers and estrogen etc to "rewire" the mind. And on this I may have another incite. Testosterone is much more about how male "I" am then I would ever have guessed. I can guess that its the same for Estrogen and based on conversations with other TS people think its true.

I rather hope you will give that option another look because I think from what I've read real "estrogen" (Not Synthetic Horse Urine stuff) is safe. Although I have an odd thing about the mix which includes female levels of Testosterone to make it "right" but thats another topic.

VIVA SNICKERS!

- Your Chum MrT

Back to the ORIGINAL topic... I think a woman that has a penis is much more attractive without an unsightly set of testicles. That's just my opinion though.

I'll vote for women with a ready and willing vagina and no testicles for ahh obvious reasons.

mrt (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:18 pm I fully accept that what they decided to do (or not) but I also reserve the right to say I like my choice

I suppose the whole thing can be condensed into this little paragraph of yours. We are who we are. It is all a personal choice. There is simply no physical pre-requsites as to our right to be recognised for who we are. Thus...

mrt (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:18 pm Emily am I tuned into the right wavelength here with you? I mean I'm totally cool with you and how you are doing your personal transition. I see GRS and hormones as being slightly more "conventional" and perhaps some of this is more for others in some cases. *Potential mates for example. On the other hand I think some TS people really do want this for themselves. The desire to use androgen blockers and estrogen etc to "rewire" the mind. And on this I may have another incite. Testosterone is much more about how male "I" am then I would ever have guessed. I can guess that its the same for Estrogen and based on conversations with other TS people think its true.

I rather hope you will give that option another look because I think from what I've read real "estrogen" (Not Synthetic Horse Urine stuff) is safe. Although I have an odd thing about the mix which includes female levels of Testosterone to make it "right" but thats another topic.

VIVA SNICKERS!

- Your Chum MrT

Conventional really shouldn't be a factor in anything. If it were, then by convention, even gay people should not be allowed to be gay, women should have no rights, we should still have absolute monarchies etc... These things were all once conventions, but as we become wiser and more knowledgable as a species, we realise such conventions were wrong, and slowly abandoned them. Same for what is considered "conventional" for transpeople. It should all be a personal choice, not a pre-requisite for being "trans". Yes, some of them really want physical changes for themselves, but that does not make them any more "trans" than those who don't. Estrogen does not make them "more" female, it makes them THINK that. I'm fine if that is their personal choice, but I don't think a choice born out of the possible insecurities of some people should be allowed to dictate who "is" and "isn't" trans.

So no, I will not be considering that option anytime soon, simply because at this stage, I feel no need for it, and more importantly, because it is against my principles with regards to this matter.