Whoops.

It all bothers me. We catch enough shit from cis people that we shouldn’t have to also catch it from other trans people. Especially trans people who make it clear that the only needs that should matter are the needs they define.

You have to love the shout-down/walk-over approach this crew generally has when it comes to discussing an issue. Upon reading the above posts above, it doesn’t take a mentat to quickly see there is no attempt at debate; the overwhelming focus is simply insult:

“…they stay in their la-la lands and complain.”

they are “a mix of male socialization and estrogen.”

“If they weren’t so exclusive, I’d give a rats behind about them…”

“HBS gals really annoy me, though. They are isolationist.”

“The really hilarious thing about the local two…”

“She’s only up to date far enough to see that modern trans activism isn’t all about her.”

“You’re just a joke we tell ourselves during coffee breaks.”

As if agressivly shouting down an issue with insults makes whatever position one might have more valid…hardly.

It’s enough to make one want to preach Wiccan theology…buy some crystals and chant to a pyramid…dress up like a Vulcan…make love to their “partner”…spend endless hours in front of a video game…internalize their transphobia…pretend to be the boogey man…have a pity party over being preop…deny their personhood…become a little more self-centered…cave in to their latent lesbian tendencies…meet at “the bar”…or cough up a bilious little nugget, all before preparing to march in the Pride parade.

*G*

I really have to wonder what the supposed evil outcome is, if “transgenders” – as opposed to “transsexuals”… a distinction I will concede only for the sake of argument – get sex change operations?

The same evil that befalls heterosexuals when homosexuals get married, I suppose?

Which is to say: none, beyond the threat so someone’s own notional “legitimacy.”

> You have to love the shout-down/walk-over approach this crew generally has when it comes to discussing an issue.

This from the person whose very response to me was to tell me to “be quiet.”

Poor Susan.

You get the “debate” you merit, snookums. If you ever have anything to offer other than refried malice, then perhaps someone will choose to take you seriously.

Until then, you’re just passing gas.

Precisely.

Those from without who would see us cast out, untouchable, share their irrationality with those within who would see us divided.

its still irrational.

I just want to say that as a post op that I am better than all of you. It’s time to bow down and worship my womanhood.

Susan, I would love to invite you on my podcast to talk about your fascinating views.

I promise I will keep your ID hidden. If interested email me: trannywreck@gmail.com

My self esteem is in no way dependent upon the respect I am given from blog posters. All. if not most, of those who post here have very similar takes on the socio/political issues in question. Though I admire and respect their committment to that position, I disagree with it. If that makes me a pariah, then so be it. I know it is novel, but it would be refreshing if different position could be debated based upon those same positions and not simply responded to with irrational insults. Then again, I can give as good as I’m given so albeit.

When you refer to “We…” in your placing post ops first sentence above, that is quite indicative of the argument…argument defined as a differece in positions. I don’t believe that post-ops should be placed “first”, just as I don’t think the GLB should be placed first when it comes to the basic rights everyone on the planet should enjoy. No where have I ever said that. And, if I have ever even vaguely implied that then I was misunderstood and didn’t express myself clearly. My position is one of difference, not of priority. With that said, I don’t buy into a “We…”; clearly most do.

If others want to place all who fall under the transgender umbrella, as well as the GLB, flag in the “We…”, i.e., the same category with the same issues, then more power to them; I don’t hold to that. The issues a post op has are simply not the same as that of a crossdresser hooked on a fetish…at least to me. Do I think that post ops should be “first” when it comes to addressing whatever those issues are defined as?…NO, I don’t. Do I think whatever the issues are that a crossdresser has are any less important than mine?…NO, I don’t. Do I think that the issues the GLB face are illegitimate?…NO, I don’t. But I do think they are different. And, I do think they should be addressed separately.

If that makes me egocentric and self-centered to others then again, that’s fine with me.

1 – Why would it make you a pariah to merely hold a differing POV?

Simply because my position doesn’t agree with the overwhelming majority of those who post here. With regard to the reponses that either referenced me or my position, I stated that it “…doesn’t take a mentat to quickly see there is no attempt at debate; the overwhelming focus is simply insult.” From the replies to that statement, it appears I underestimated.

2 – How are the issues a post op faces different from a crossdresser?

By definition, MtoF post ops are females; crossdressing is a fetish. Whatever the issues are of crossdressers, they have nothing in common with those of post ops.

3 – How are the issues a pre-op or non-op deals with different from a Post op?

There are many. Once pre-ops have transitioned and undergone GRS, their issues are obviously the same as post-ops. Those non-ops who have by choice opted not to have GRS are crossdressers, with whatever those issues might be.

4 – How are the issues of a post op gay person different from a non trans gay person?

I don’t know; I am neither.

5 – Which is more important in terms of humanity — the similarites or the differences?

As an answer to that as a general question, that would depend upon the differences. As I assume you refer to the questions two and three, I don’t see any similarities.

It seems that many if not most of those who post in here somehow see gender as this broad spectrum. I don’t. I think the notion of a “third gender” and some form of a gender spectrum is BS. I was preop once and I’m not going to be bothered with those I’m sure will come back with the argument of “Well, Susan, so you HAD to have surgery before you thought of yourself as female?” But to answer that…NO, I didn’t. I HAD to have surgery first and most importantly because innately I knew I WAS female and couldn’t stand the sight of my genitals, much less handle a male status, further realizing that aside from my own internal feelings, neither socially nor legally would I ever be recognized as female without GRS.

Everyone does what they must do…and approaches whatever that is the way they decide is best. I don’t fault anyone for whatever that tact may be. When I transitioned it was paramount that my former social interaction be mirrored after transition. I lived in ALL of the world before I transitioned and it was very important to me to be able to live in all of the world after. Then, and now, I had no desire to define my existence, as I think so many do, by the fact that I was born transsexual. I find it sad that so many seem to do that and never fully integrate into the mainstream, instead choosing to live forever identifying with the “transgender” lifestyle. That is their choice; it’s their life, and if they are happy, I am tickled pink.

Now, I started this thread way back when by saying I really don’t care one way or the other…and I don’t. So, again, I am bowing out of this debate.

Then, and now, I had no desire to define my existence, as I think so many do, by the fact that I was born transsexual. I find it sad that so many seem to do that and never fully integrate into the mainstream, instead choosing to live forever identifying with the “transgender” lifestyle. That is their choice; it’s their life, and if they are happy, I am tickled pink.

Ignoring the Christian Right language of “transgender lifestyle,” the reason that trans people are coming out of the closet is for survival and visibility. When trans people integrated fully and disappeared into society, it left room for others to speak for us – those like Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, etc – and to do so with the luxury of not caring about what we had to say about ourselves.

You may find it sad that so many never fully integrate into the mainstream, but if we did integrate, who would advocate for our rights?

That is their choice; it’s their life, and if they are happy, I am tickled pink.

That’s very magnanimous of you.

1 – You also dismissed outright me — doing the same thing that you accused the others of doing.

2 – How can you know they have nothing in common with MtF — wouldn’t being female be part of it?

You didn’t even *try* to understand them. Gratned, I’m not exactly the most buddy buddy with CD’s/TV’s, but at least I don’t dismiss them as having nothing in common with me — espeically when its obvious they have far more of what makes us different in common.

3 – So a person who, for reasons of physical incapability cannot have surgery is dismissed as a crossdresser — which is buying wholehertedly into the same phobic BS that you will be accused of.

As for us being women, have you attended the Michigan womyn’s festival recently? I hope not — you’d be a liar if did.

You forget that our public gender is determined by how others percieve us, regardless of how we percieve ourselves. We can choose to accept that (which you appear to be advocating) or deny it.

And your entire argument utterly ignores the entire consideration of passability, which, to me, is jsut down right rude and inconsiderate.

Lastly, you didn’t even answer the question. You stepped around it to make a point that was basically it doesn’t matter to you — if they don’t have the surgery, they aren’t your type of person and therefore have none of the problems you do.

I disagree. They have all the problems you do. And more.

4 – You say, point blank, that you don’t know, yet you have the gall to say that they have differnt issues from each others? If you don’t know, how can you say that? That’s hypocrisy.

5 – Depends ont eh differneces, you7 say.

I say it doesn’t matter. I also say it isn’t a general question, but a specific and exacitng one.

This is another example iof why people with your general politics bother me. Its either apathy, or NMP, or more of the same, constant harping on “them” versus “us”.

we are all the same. we are human.

After that, we are individuals. Everything else should be irrelevant.

What you are doing is *exactly* the same was has been done to confine women inthe past to rigid gender roles. To deny racial equality.

It is the very *root* of sexism and racism.

It is *keeping the Us us and the Them them*.

And sorry susan, but I find that outlook to be, well, against every principle I believe in.

Becuase its what’s made my life as a woman a hell of a lot harder than it ever needed to be.

And is the same for you.

Oh gosh, the “more TS than thou” argument again.

I’ve known women who are no-ops who are far more feminine than me.

I’ve seen far too much evidence that this is a matter of neurology not to believe it. It’s biological. And that means there has to be degrees of it.

All that’s necessary to be TS is that you have a body mostly looking like one sex, and the part of the brain that says “I am a boy” or “I am a girl” mismatched with that.

Now it so happens that if that area is mismatched, a lot of the rest of the brain is too. Depending on the exact parts, you can have someone who’s as graceful as a ballerina, or as galumphing as the most diesel of dykes. Some can survive quite adequately with atypical genitalia, others can’t. Some are girly, some are geeks. Some have bodies that look like footballers, others cheerleaders. A bit like women in general, really.

I shouldn’t “pass”. I’m geeky, I have a 45″ underbust ribcage and only a 5′ 5 1/2″ height. No FFS, no BA. I move with all the grace of a pregnant hippo. Yet I’m consistently told “I can’t imagine that you ever looked different” ny the few who have Need To Know about my medical history. Rather than looking pretty, I look pretty awful, yet that doesn’t seem to matter.

Technically, I’m Intersexed rather than pure TS. I looked like a guy. That changed. Then I started HRT to keep it that way. But that makes me no more “feminine” than anyone else, the only thing it did do was give me some confidence. Enough to object to other women being labelled “mere crossdressers” because they are able to stand having masculinised genitalia, when I couldn’t, not even the partial set I used to have.

Surgery is an easy-to-measure divide. But does orchi count? Maybe the divide should be at HRT, yet I went fulltime without that (I had to, couldn’t pass as “boy” any more). I think the best compromise, because there us no universal rule, is to say those who are fulltime or have been judged psychologically recommended for HRT, are women. But the distinction gets blurred. Those guys who crossdress have the same kind of neural glitch we do, just in different areas. There are boys far more feminine than me, brains almost totally female. But the part saying “M or F” isn’t. That’s what matters.

Oh gosh, the “more TS than thou” argument again.

I’ve known women who are no-ops who are far more feminine than me.

I’ve seen far too much evidence that this is a matter of neurology not to believe it. It’s biological. And that means there has to be degrees of it.

All that’s necessary to be TS is that you have a body mostly looking like one sex, and the part of the brain that says “I am a boy” or “I am a girl” mismatched with that.

Now it so happens that if that area is mismatched, a lot of the rest of the brain is too. Depending on the exact parts, you can have someone who’s as graceful as a ballerina, or as galumphing as the most diesel of dykes. Some can survive quite adequately with atypical genitalia, others can’t. Some are girly, some are geeks. Some have bodies that look like footballers, others cheerleaders. A bit like women in general, really.

I shouldn’t “pass”. I’m geeky, I have a 45″ underbust ribcage and only a 5′ 5 1/2″ height. No FFS, no BA. I move with all the grace of a pregnant hippo. Yet I’m consistently told “I can’t imagine that you ever looked different” ny the few who have Need To Know about my medical history. Rather than looking pretty, I look pretty awful, yet that doesn’t seem to matter.

Technically, I’m Intersexed rather than pure TS. I looked like a guy. That changed. Then I started HRT to keep it that way. But that makes me no more “feminine” than anyone else, the only thing it did do was give me some confidence. Enough to object to other women being labelled “mere crossdressers” because they are able to stand having masculinised genitalia, when I couldn’t, not even the partial set I used to have.

Surgery is an easy-to-measure divide. But does orchi count? Maybe the divide should be at HRT, yet I went fulltime without that (I had to, couldn’t pass as “boy” any more). I think the best compromise, because there us no universal rule, is to say those who are fulltime or have been judged psychologically recommended for HRT, are women. But the distinction gets blurred. Those guys who crossdress have the same kind of neural glitch we do, just in different areas. There are boys far more feminine than me, brains almost totally female. But the part saying “M or F” isn’t. That’s what matters.

“That is their choice; it’s their life, and if they are happy, I am tickled pink.

That’s very magnanimous of you.”

Upon reading your post I generally found it well written. Granted, the reference to the Christian Right was just argument for the sake of argument, but that’s the way, isn’t it? I think most understood the point, but for those more interested in the trees than the forest, substitute “community” for “lifestyle”.

As for your “magnanimous” slam, and you can’t post without one, what would you have preferred I have said? How someone wants to lead their life is their business, and I respect that. My post clearly referred to people whose life revolves around their gender expression, never get past that, and choose to dwell in that realm. I do find that sad for it seems they are a prisoner of their gender issues. I also recognize that people deal with things as best they can, and if that is the only way, or even their chosen way, then I am fine with that and indeed tickled pink. By the way, haven’t you ever heard the adage “If you are happy, I am tickled pink.” Evidently not, so for your benefit what that means is simply if you are happy with it, then I am fine with it as well.

So, what is your problem with that, such that you imply it was written in sarcasm, Lisa?

I’d just like to back Rebecca up in what she says here. She is The “Every Woman” of whom Chaka Khan sings; she is the frangrant and modest flower of transfm; never does liquor or strong language pass her refined lips. Rebecca Nay is way superior to any other transwoman podcasting today, especially that deviant Marti Abernathey who keeps catching me in Yahoo and is probably a lesbian. I sincerely hope that when Rebecca has Susan on her show that she will invite me to participate as the second guest and provide a suitable earpiece so this person can hear me because, according to her, I don’t exist.:-D

> I am bowing out of this debate.

Ha. That’ll be the day.

As for the rest…

I have no difficulty in allowing a distinction between crossdressers (fetishistic or otherwise) and a narrower class of trans people. I’ve met straight crossdressers and have observed little no correlation between their own motivations or experience and my own. And clearly, there are significant areas where the concerns of such people do not reflect my own… access to certain medical services and modification of legal documents, for instance. At the same time, I also know that there are some areas of overlap… such as the infamous “bathroom issue” which always seems to be the easiest talking point. The fact is that crossdressers and pre-ops both need to pee, and there’s no way to tell them apart. The only distinction is their success at doing so in public… in short, their passing privilege – which, by the way, many post-ops don’t have, no matter how pure or essential their identity.

Susan also seems to have confused the net with real life, and to actually believe that “transgender” people – as opposed to those whom she would concede are “actually transsexual” by whatever arbitrary criteria make sense to her – are in the habit of prancing down the street in neon fright wigs, thereby relegating themselves forever – and proudly so – to some kind of trans ghetto. Nothing, of course, is further than the truth. Most trans people live “in ALL the world” and their so-called lifestyle is defined by the same needs as everyone else, no matter their specific position with respect to Susan’s solipsistic point of reference.

“1 – You also dismissed outright me — doing the same thing that you accused the others of doing.”

I have lost track of the posts, but if I have dismissed you or your post outright, and I have no reason to not believe you when you say I have, then I was wrong and I apologize.

“2 – How can you know they have nothing in common with MtF — wouldn’t being female be part of it?”

I don’t see crossdressers as female, so no.

“You didn’t even *try* to understand them.”

No, I didn’t and don’t. I also don’t try to understand what makes BDSM tick either…or any other fetish.

“Gratned, I’m not exactly the most buddy buddy with CD’s/TV’s, but at least I don’t dismiss them as having nothing in common with me — espeically when its obvious they have far more of what makes us different in common.”

I don’t dismiss them and I almost agree with you when you say they have far more of what makes us different in common. I don’t think we have anything in commmon.

“3 – So a person who, for reasons of physical incapability cannot have surgery is dismissed as a crossdresser — which is buying wholehertedly into the same phobic BS that you will be accused of.”

I didn’t address those who for reasons of “physical incapability” are dismissed as a crossdresser. What I DID say was (caps mine): “Those non-ops who have BY CHOICE opted not to have GRS are crossdressers.

“As for us being women, have you attended the Michigan womyn’s festival recently? I hope not — you’d be a liar if did.”

No, I haven’t…and I don’t lie. I’m aware of the issues regarding that festival, however, and think their policy with not allowing post ops stink. This is an example that refers to the “uniquely different” issues of post ops.

“You forget that our public gender is determined by how others percieve us, regardless of how we percieve ourselves. We can choose to accept that (which you appear to be advocating) or deny it.”

Yes, I do choose to accept it. That is human nature and it won’t change regardless of what is done.

“And your entire argument utterly ignores the entire consideration of passability, which, to me, is jsut down right rude and inconsiderate.”

So now I am rude and inconsiderate because there is an issue I didn’t address? That’s more than a little wierd. You are holding me accountable for something I didn’t even express myself on? ROFL Geez…can’t you throw me a bone here?

“Lastly, you didn’t even answer the question. You stepped around it to make a point that was basically it doesn’t matter to you — if they don’t have the surgery, they aren’t your type of person and therefore have none of the problems you do.”

I was answering your question, not trying to make any point. However, you’re comment relative to “not my type of person” could not be further from the truth. As you said of yourself, “I’m not exactly the most buddy buddy with CD’s/TV’s…” that also applies to me. I have no problems with crossdressers nor anyone under the transgender or GLB umbrellas, nor with the rights they feel entitled to…none whatsoever. I don’t support each and everyone of those rights, but no one supports what EVERY one else desires. I have friends who fall into the entire GLBT spectrum. I don’t think that the issues/rights of ANY group, GLBT or otherwise are more important than ANY other group, or that one set of rights should be addressed “first” over such perceived importance. I am not alone in that thinking…all one has to do is look at the uproar over the ENDA issue and the fact that the HRC put the GLB first over the T rather than to support inclusion. I THINK THAT THE ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

“I disagree. They have all the problems you do. And more.”

Honestly, I don’t have any problems, or at least haven’t to date and there is only one issue that I would like to see addressed and that is important to me. I would like to see Federal legislation that would recognize and legalize across the board, in every state, in every instance, the gender status of a post operative TS…a gender recognition act, if you will. If and when that is ever done, then post ops would then be entitled, by law, to ALL of the rights afforded any other female (or male)in the United States. The Littleton case, the Michigan music festival, and other such issues would soon disappear, if not immediately and overnight. The issues involving the change of birth certificates that many experience would be a thing of the past…and so on. That Federal recognition will never come to pass if not addressed separately.

“4 – You say, point blank, that you don’t know, yet you have the gall to say that they have differnt issues from each others? If you don’t know, how can you say that? That’s hypocrisy.”

And just HOW is it hypocrisy Again, you are holding me accountable for something I have never addressed and know nothing about. Your question was:

“4 – How are the issues of a post op gay person different from a non trans gay person?”

I DON’T know how they are different. I have never addressed nor posted on what the issues of a post op gay person may have when compared to what those of a non trans gay person’s may be. Please cut and paste where I did so.

“5 – Depends ont eh differneces, you7 say.”

Yes, I think so. With regard to humanity, people do not advocate for the things everyone agrees on but of the things that other people feel differently about.

“I say it doesn’t matter. I also say it isn’t a general question, but a specific and exacitng one.”

Well, the question was: “5 – Which is more important in terms of humanity — the similarites or the differences?” That seems pretty general to me. But actually, I disagree that it doesn’t matter. Differences that humanity may have can run the gamut from a simple disagreement in which two people walk away as friends, to world wars in which millions are killed. How similarities and differences affect or are important to humanity depends on what, and to what degree, there are differences I think.

“This is another example iof why people with your general politics bother me. Its either apathy, or NMP, or more of the same, constant harping on “them” versus “us”.”

I have no clue where you are coming from or what your point is here…sorry. Certainly not everyone feels obliged to have the same passion for, or join in on every issue, nor should they be; people become involved on the issues that are important to them. I don’t see this debate as a “them vs. us”…I don’t see a competition at all for I don’t agree their are similarities. I support addressing the issues separately.

“What you are doing is *exactly* the same was has been done to confine women inthe past to rigid gender roles. To deny racial equality – It is the very *root* of sexism and racism – It is *keeping the Us us and the Them them*.”

That’s absolutely absurd.

LOL…it’s tough to bow out…the wolves are circling.

If expressing a view is solipsisism, then everyone posting here shares that philosopy.

Dear Susan ..

“The wolves are circling” … lol and what exactly did you expect? I am thinking George Bush made the same mistake with “Mission Accomplished”. Do you also reply to comments made on the Christian Coalition blogs that denounce the existance of Jesus !

-Throwing a Buoy to Susan- pun intended *S*

Qualifications first: 22 years M2F Post op, married (to a guy), Business owner, been there done that.

I am old enough now to remember a time when being transsexual was still considered a medical condition by the general public. At that time most folks had never met or talked to a transsexual . It was something they occassionally read in the newspapers and amusing or fascinating as it may have seemed to them it didn’t effect them. They went on with their lives and considered these few poor people that had surgery must be truly women, just as a person born cojoined must surely want to be free to walk alone.

I am not exactly sure when those opinions started to change but if I had to take a guess it would have been in the mid to late 80′s, about the same time that the Internet came to the world. Anyone could suddenly and annonymously be anyone or any gender and like mercury flows to itself so the transwhatevers started to turn up in chat rooms everywhere. Suddenly balding middle aged men, their youth now spent on uncaring wives and children that drained them of their identity, could assume the identity of “casandra” and re-kindle the flame that once burned in them long ago as they tried on their sisters clothes and fantasized about being a woman.

As the internet grew so did the porn industry and with it came the tranny’s and shemales and the wannabe’s and the middle aged men named casandra. Chat rooms sprang up and the middle aged crossdressers all chatted gleefully and exchanged tips, were emboldened by the exploits of the daring, started taking day trips into the world and reading all they could about being a woman. Soon enough they chatted with men on the net and not wanting to appear strange in any way, assumed the title of transsexual. That made everything right in their eyes and off they went looking for herbals and hormones, assuming their wife would understand their plight. …Enough of the history lesson….

All susan is saying is that the serious transsexuals have been hijacked if you will. I myself was reluctant to use the word transsexual in reference to myself when I came out to my now husband. He is a straight guy that had raised 6 kids from an 18 year marriage and I was terrified that using the word transsexual would immediatly throw the wrong impression. Thankfully, he was in love with me already and although he did research it and found a plethora of tranny “how to” sites, he did recognize that I was not playing girly and most of all that I was not gay.

For me, susan makes a lot of sense. So do some of the others of you. As it has been said, things today are not what they used to be. The genie is out of the bottle, the trans are marching in the streets, the public is VERY aware of ALL of us and the only thing for certain is that nothing is ever going to be the same again. Once upon a time the goal was to transition, to become women and to quietly move into the new role. Today? .. I am not sure its possible any more. Perhaps the age of stealth is now gone. One thing for sure is that there will never be a ranking where post-ops are at the top of the heap, and that is sad because now we no longer become women, we merely assume the role and say we are, and that is not the same thing in my mind. Its like flying microsoft simulator then marching down to the FAA demanding a pilots license.

Susan… come on home now. You have played in here long enough and your annoying the gang. My apologies to all .. she really IS a good kid… *S*

> As the internet grew so did the porn industry and with it came the tranny’s and shemales and the wannabe’s and the middle aged men named casandra.

This is an odd reading of the history. While the ‘net has certainly made it possible for more people to get more information – and either exploit it or learn from it, as befits their character – trannies, porn and shemales have been around for much, much longer.

The fact is also that “transsexual” is as much as a constructed identity as “transgender” is often accused of being. An individual’s understanding of his- or herself is shaped to no small degree by cultural context, and it took a long time for the whole idea of “transsexualism” – and in particular, the arbitarily precise definition used by some transsexuals that has nothing whatever to do with observable behavior, and everything to do with presumed motivation – to spread and solidify. Who is to say that the better-known shemales of the pre-purist era were not “true transsexuals”, albeit poor, more streetsmart than educated, and raised in a context which did not lend itself to full actualization?

Ladies

I have no wish to engage in a debate with any of you and you can be sure that no matter your response, this will be my last post on this board. I will try to answer both of your responses without setting up a debate.

Kara…

> Qualifications first: 22 years M2F Post op, married (to a guy)

err, how do either of those count as “qualifications”? >BTW, do you even realize the internet is how a lot of us realized we were not CDs but realized we are TSs?<>This is an odd reading of the history.<<

It was late, I was not about to stay up all night and fill in the gaps of 20 years. Yes I am aware there were trans back in jesus’s time, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck ..or is that rhudebega ? If you didn’t get the meaning perhaps you didn’t want to .. who knows….

Happy thanksgiving to all *S*

It seems that the reply to kara didn’t post properly – here is what I said

Kara…

> Qualifications first: 22 years M2F Post op, married (to a guy)

err, how do either of those count as “qualifications”? >BTW, do you even realize the internet is how a lot of us realized we were not CDs but realized we are TSs?<<

Yes I do, and as the old saying goes, “Many of those messerscmitts were actually fokkers” .. one can convince oneself of anything.

Congratulations on your GRS *S*

hmmmm .. this board doesn’t post properly

Perhaps I should have said “Background”. If for instance I was posting a comment on a university blog about a construct of law, stating my “qualifications” to speak on the matter such as “Professor with 20 years at harvard law school” might enable the reader to have some idea of the level of understanding of the issue to which I speak. Instead you merely assumed I was bragging with your “High Horse” reference.

>>BTW, do you even realize the internet is how a lot of us realized we were not CDs but realized we are TSs?<<

Yes I do, and as the old saying goes, “Many of those messerscmitts were actually fokkers” .. one can convince oneself of anything.

Congratulations on your GRS *S*

> Yes I do, and as the old saying goes, “Many of those messerscmitts were actually fokkers” .. one can convince oneself of anything.

This is of course the same line that Susan used, but employing a different metaphor.

What such separatists persistently fail to understand is that it applies just as well to them. As such it, it is a universally invalidating insinuation – the rhetorical equivalent of mutually assured destruction – or just piss-poor rationalization.

In either case, as the man says… “the point is moot!”

I meant what I said, Lisa: That the issues of post-ops (and implied: pre ops) should be addressed separately from the issues of the GLB and crossdressers.

If you truly meant that, you picked a bad way to say it. You shouldn’t assume that the inclusion of those who haven’t had surgery is assumed when you explicitly include those who’ve had surgery.

Also, quite a few issues overlap quite strongly with GLB issues, to the point of inseparability.

I also know that if someone wants to take that route bad enough, most can find a way to get it done.

This is naive. You’re implying that those who can’t find a way to get it done are somehow at fault, not the fact that they’re unable to get work, or the possibility that after they do get work, they’re fired after the IRS outs them. You are basically saying that if you want it bad enough, you can magic up the means to get the money. That’s just not true, not for everyone, and probably not for most.

Again, this is just argument for the sake of argument. Taking what I said out of context just to prevail in a discussion is irrational, if not just plain juvenile…and I’m NOT going to let it pass, Lisa. I’m going to call you on it everytime…EVERY time.

You know, it is just possible that I strongly disagree with much of what you say. It’s not juvenile. It’s not irrational. Yes, I am more concerned with the trans people who are murdered every year than I am with rights for those women who’ve had vaginoplasty. I am more concerned with making surgery more accessibly through insurance, and making insurance more accessible. The trials and tribulations of post-surgical life are pretty much the last issues I’m concerned with when it comes to trans issues.

I haven’t unsubscribed, but rteal life has led me elsewhere of late.

However, Lisa’s last post somewhere up there made me pause and think.

She noted that post transfolk are the lowest on her list, and I sorta have to stop and say whoa, given that everything she cited is effort to make sure that as many of us as possible can *get* to post status.

So actually, LOL, I think she’s got them at the top of her list.

Which is great.

Because it takes a HELL of a lot to get there, and no one gets there alone.

For me, though, the focus is actually on everyone else. I utterly support what lisa’s going after — no quesiton.

But I worry most, and put the bulk of my effort, towards helping the rest of the t community politically, and then simply doing education about TS stuff.

TV’s freak me out. Really. But its becuase they freak me out that I want to help. If my reaction is this bad, then for a lot of people its gotta be ten times worse.

And those are the good guys.

DQ/DK, E-men and B-women, GenderQueer/F/whatever…

I’m wholly trapped in my own heteronormative mind. Product of my time.

Stretching is hard for me. Learning, coming to understand, and repsecting them is easy.

This is also why I understand Susan and Leigh. I know I could fall there in a heartbeat, and I take steps not to be that lazy in my thoughts and concepts.

It is through fighting for them, htough, that the greatest progress for us will be made.

We have an “excuse” — a great and difficult to really kick rationale for being, even if we, as individuals, don’t like it.

We’ve got a “medical condition”.

But what do they have?

Only thing I could see was us.

In the same way that comments like these are used to describe gay people, they are used to describe us, as well — and its the least of those that counts, not the greatest:

A male that acts like a “sissy” and
A female that acts and looks like a “butch”
No really, there are dead give a ways to normal people that someone is gay. Obvious.

UMM,,THEY SHOW NO INTEREST TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE SEX..THE GUYS FOR THE MOST PART ARE GIRLY GIRLS..THE GAY GIRLS WANNA BE GUYS…AND ATTITUDE WHEN SOMEBODY STANDS AGAINST GAYS!!OR IF YOU TALK ABOUT GOD..THEY GET REALLY UNEASY..BECAUSE THE BIBLE CLEARLY CONDONES HOMOSEXUALITY 100%,NOT 99%..BUT 100 %…REPENT TO YOUR CREATOR WHO LOVES YOU.BUT HE WON’T BEND HIS LAWS FOR ANYBODY…

that’s two of literally dozens I encounter every day.

They are direct responses to “how do you know someone you pass by on the street is gay?”

Two more:

Cause jeans with no butt, revealing lace lavender panties on someone with a five o clock shadow, an adams apple and a real in your face attitude about being gay, and you look at them and wonder what they would do in private just to flaunt it. Sickening. Revolting.

Gay Men:

-Drive VW Jettas
-Rainbow stickers EVERYWHERE
-Clean and pristine house
-Posture (hands on hips- walking with a bounce)
-Animated expressions (mouth is wide open quite often)
-Saying things like, “That’s fabulous” or “How gorgeous is that!” every 5 to 10 seconds
-Speaking with a “lisp” that’s obviously ‘practiced’
-They bombard you with their knowledge of the theatre
-Quite fashionable

Lesbian:

-no makeup
-greasy fingernails
-wear wife beaters and military boots
-mullet
-can fix any diesel
-wears men’s clothing
-built like a tank and not afraid to use her fists to pound you into the wall

You want to know how easy it is to blend in, there ya go.

And some folks won’t ever be able to do it.

The least of those.