TransAdvocate

Whoa. What a messed up bit of formatting. Let’s try this again:

Given the rhetoric of this recent entry,
the current one strains credulity just a wee bit.

What has changed? Is HRC more trustworthy than they were then? Or has their duplicity not been sufficiently revealed, especially with the timing of the poll? Is it not yet clear that HRC simply will not tell the truth when it comes to issues that concern us?

Oh, and now that Mara Keisling has openly called Solmonese a liar, may we consider her rehabilitated, or are we going to continue to insist that she “answer for” being as screwed as everyone else?

> I’ve never said that we should join hands with HRC.

You do seem to be stating fairly clearly that you believe that we should hold our noses and continue to work with them. I find that difficult to reconcile, both with their own behavior and with this blog’s earlier editorial position.

I seem to have missed something.

It’s not just Mara Keisling, there’s also Donna Rose, who may not have used the word “liar,” but who resigned from the board of HRC in frustration over this. She knew what HRC was going to do long before they actually did it by signing that letter.

So, whether or not it’s constructive to burn bridges with HRC, the last thing we can do is trust them. I agree with Marti that we should focus on a positive relationship with United ENDA, with Rep. Baldwin and the others who stood by us.

I agree with you Marti on the reality that we NEED the HRC. The question is, how do we get them to pull their collective rich white male heads our of their poopy buttholes? I agree with Ethan’s idea that we need to hit them in the pocketbook. Current and potential HRC donors are the people we need to have a dialogue with.

> Me, I don’t think they’ll do diddly.

Of course they won’t. That’s a foregone conclusion. So why waste so much of your own energy and resource trying to “ruin” them… an effort which will, in the end, ruin only you?

> Because it will feel good.

In the short term, perhaps. But in the long run it is likely to drain and corrupt whatever remains of the better part of your nature.

The world is bigger than HRC, and your energy is a conserved quantity.

> Anyone with a few thousand dollars and a plane ticket to Thailand can change their anatomical gender.

Yeah. Puts quite a crimp in your little bubble of essentialist self-assurance, doesn’t it?

Oh no! Now anyone can get a sex change! How can we tell the “real” transsexuals from the poseurs anymore?

Not so long ago, people like you used to insist that a transsexual was a person who change their sex. Period. Hence their/your sneering at the “non-ops”. Now you’ve been painted into an even smaller epistemological corner.

Whatever will you do?

Anything but evolve, apparently.

So Susan - you consider anyone who dates a person with a history of transsexualism worthy of your disdain and abnormal?

Bit of a catch 22 you’re setting up for yourself.

“…crimp…(my) bubble…?” Naaaah…doesn’t affect it at all. It does further illustrate and confirm that one can call themselves a turnip if they want to…and even believe it. One’s ability to differentiate between male and female is acquired quite early in life. It’s very easy to tell the difference between “real” transsexuals and wannabes…turnips too, for that matter.

“Not so long ago…” people like me didn’t have to contend with people like you. Life was much better then; there were fewer men masquerading as vegtables.

Whatever will you (I) do? Whatever I want to, sweetpea. One thing I won’t have to do is learn the correct usage of the word epistemology and its forms.

I don’t believe I’ve made a claim . I did make a general comment and voiced an opinion…one I stand by. But, as you are so damn offended and attempt to slam me on a personal level with nothing more pseudointellectual verbiage used incorrectly, where do you fit in? Just so you don’t misunderstand, I really don’t care what you self-define as.

Why you or anyone else would care one way or the other about my take on your precious “community” is beyond me anyhow. You and those like you are in the majority for sure. The trans blogs are not going to all of a sudden promote standing up for those issues unique to transsexuals, much less those of us who are post op. They are not going to abandon their crossdressing “brothers and sisters” and recognize the transgender umbrella for the homosexual construct it is. Certainly they are not about to disasociate themselves from the homosexual movement and will no doubt continue to support the GLB in their ultimate quest, same-sex marriage. They will continue to support the concept of a gender spectrum, the legitimacy of a non-op, and nondiscrimination for all who present an alternate gender expression. Sadly, they will also sit dumbfounded, incapable of understanding why one doesn’t want to share a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex, or go to work everyday in the presence of crossdressers.

It’s your ballgame, Val. I’ve told you I’m bowing out of the debate. So what’s your issue specifically? You, and those like you, have control and it’s most obvious to me no one is likely to sway that position. After all, the blogosphere is chocked full of editorials that agree completely with you and those who hold your opinion…there is not one that holds to mine.

So what’s your point? Is it that I don’t agree with you nor agree generally with the party line? If that’s the case then too bad cause you are absolutely right. I don’t.

NGLTF, for one.

HRC must be hurt - we will have to cost them
donations. They have a huge mortgage and a lot of salaries to pay. Any drop in revenues would get them to the table.

Of course, once at the table, better hook them up to a polygraph machine. They lied
at SCC. That fact must never be forgotten.

50 dollars.

50 dollars will buy you a background report on anyone, so long as you have their first and last names.

It will show adresses, names, phone numbers, and more.

Spend more, you can get more.

woodworking is over. Stealth is a relic of the past.

But hey — ya know, if you want to think that transwomen are conflating sexual orientation and gender identity, go for it.

Its incorrect, but I understand why some folks might do that.

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

So Susan, you want there to be rights …. but only for people like yourself?

That reminds me … I have yet to meet an HBS gal who was not loudly ’stealth’. A bit of an oxymoron really.

Susan’s a bit more explicit here:

The interesting part is that the trans blogs and activists rather than advocate for the rights of post ops and those issues that uniquely affect us, instead rally around the homosexual movement thus putting rights that post ops already have at risk by some how associating same-sex marriage (between homosexuals) with heterosexual marriage involving a post op. Instead of championing a position that clearly defines, if not EXPLAINS, a postop in terms of their legal post operative gender, they march behind a GLB movement that has turned post op MtoF and FtoM into defacto gay men and women, respectively.

So yeah, she’s upset that trans activists aren’t focusing on issues that primarily benefit trans people who have had surgery. She doesn’t care to acknowledge economic limitations, legal limitations, or health limitations on the ability to get surgery. For example, Thailand is cheaper than the US - but not nearly as cheap as it was a few years ago. Also, at least one state will not allow you to change the sex on your birth certificate if you get SRS outside of the United States.

She’s only up to date far enough to see that modern trans activism isn’t all about her. That and she doesn’t even consider herself trans since she’s had surgery, so her complaints are kind of meaningless.

The really hilarious thing about the local two: how much in a glass house they are. While ranting about “true” TSs and such they conveniently forget to mention something. That one of the two is, by her own words, a “peri-op” (in other words, she opted for an orchi for now).

So, by their own definitions, she must be less of a TS than me since I happened to have SRS?

I have to admit, though, that I have a problem with willfully excluding them simply because they exclude others.

They still have the same issues — even if they don’t see it. They are still women, like us, even if they don’t agree with the manner of expression.

Even if they don’t think they are transgender or transsexual, I am not a separatist. I really find it difficult to be like them, becuase, for me, that’s simply not in the picture.

Its akin to the black sheep syndrome, and I’ve lived with that far too long…

Yes, exactly. I wouldn’t argue for excluding any trans people, no matter how much internalized transphobia they carry.

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.”

So I insulted you by calling you isolationist?

I insulted you by saying ya annoy me?

I somehow managed to “shout down”, on a written forum without using caps, you?

Susan, you’ve wigged, I think.

I haven’t once told you to shut up. You’ve said it, however. I haven’t shouted you down.

I expressed my opinion. Reasonably.

You are right, though, I won’t debate the issue with you.

I won’t, because I’ve never met an HBS’er who is inclusive.

That’s a disagreement of principle, and that’s why its fine by me if you don’t want to get involved yourself.

I’ll still be working on causes that you can benefit from.

And that’s all that matters to me.

Not the internal politics of nomenclature or separatist existence.

Stealth is no longer an option, Susan. I envy you the ability to get it.

I’m passable, I’m het, and 15 years ago I could have gone stealth too.

Time’s change.

Susan, as long as you continue to act as if the only trans people who matter are those who have had surgery, you’re not going to get any respect. Your reality - the time when you transitioned, the life you lived before and after, even now - is not the reality that trans people today have to live with.

As long as you make it clear that you view “non-ops” with contempt and that you want to establish a trans hierarchy placing yourself at the top, you’re not going to get a nice reaction. You’re like a bull in a china shop, dragging around decades old conceptions through our modern realities.

We can’t afford to place trans people who’ve had surgery first. There’s too many obstacles for trans people in general and trans people who haven’t had surgery specifically.

Yes, yay, you could get surgery while working for minimum wage at a Reed Erickson-funded gender clinic. That doesn’t happen anymore.

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.

“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?

“If that’s not what you meant, then what did you mean?”

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.

“When you say that anyone can fly to Thailand and get surgery for a few thousand dollars, do you really believe it’s still that easy? Do you think that trans people can just magic up several thousand dollars…”

What is it about plain english you have difficulty with? I did not say that, nor even vaguely imply it. What I DID say was: “Anyone with a few thousand dollars and a plane ticket to Thailand can change their anatomical gender. The sidestepping of the SOC is so common its mere existance is a sham.” And it’s true…and if you have the exposure to the issues you blog on that you say you do, you KNOW it’s true. So, for YOUR benefit alone, IF one HAS a few thousand dollars and IF they HAVE a plain ticket to Thailand, then it’s not difficult to side step the SOC and obtain the surgery. It is quite clear what I said. As for thinking someone can “magic” up the money to transition?…of course not. I have been through it. I know how difficult it is to balance the financial equations of transitioning and GRS. I also know that if someone wants to take that route bad enough, most can find a way to get it done. Thousands do it every year.

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.

“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.

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?

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*

> 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 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.

Maybe because we are, oh, grateful, to those who gave us a helping hand when we were starting out …. and have realized the best way to repay that is to help the next group. Pretty hard to do that if they can not find you.

Stuck in the middle of this debate

I know I am coming into this conversation late, but I would like to add my 2 cents worth here. On a variety of topics that have been posted.

Leigh and Susan are, in part, elitists. I think that anytime you try and establish a heirarchy you risk creating a new caste system which only further divides an already fractures group of people with barely a common agenda anymore.

HOWEVER……….

They are right on target about the decline of a structured path for transitioning, and the availability of the ‘instant gratification’ school of transition. It is the very people who greenlight themselves thru the process and THEN come to the realization that there are some ‘residual’ issues to address that create this line of controvery, not Leigh and Susan. By the very nature of their latent emotional instability they (further) illustrate why the HBSoC were drawn up in the first place.

AS A (PRESENTLY) NON-OP…………

To continue………..

As A (Presently) Non-op I would love to have surgery but, due to other more compelling issues, it is currently totally out of the question. It hasn’t, however, stopped me from developing a fairly full and well-rounded life that isn’t centered, or dependent, on the trans-community. I have been full-time for almost 12 years, have been under a doctor’s care the entire time and was pretty much jettisoned by my therapist as not having enough relevant issues of ANY sort to keep coming back.

STILL………..

I am offended that so many think they can just jump in, find a ‘friendly’ therapist who will nudge them along and then just assume that whatever they elect to do is fine with the rest of the human race.

I need to say that there are many people who think that transition is a matter of buying a few skirts, some makeup and 5″ heels and parading around. So many are all form and no substance; forgetting the huge impact of re-socialization and the effects your conduct has on people around you.

SO while I don’t enjoy the line drawn by Leigh and/or Susan, I understand why they might feel the way they do. To a lesser degree, *I* object to the people who come merrily down the lane shouting their transness and presuming that if they say it is so, it is, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Let’s not completely ignore the logic behind the HBSoC. They aren’t rules, but they are some pretty logical guidelines that eliminate alot of the self-destructive, self-delusional conduct that vilifies so many of us in the eyes of the majority of the inhabitants of the planet.

Syntax error. This paragraph should read:

And as if most of the transwomen in view these days didn’t quite frankly have their shit pretty much together and get along in the world quite nicely, thank you very much, regardless of their identity politics?

Your point certainly was lucid and valid. I hope that the strength of my retort was not taken to suggest otherwise.

A couple of points:

I’m not convinced that a lot of the people who didn’t “fool the system” didn’t crash and burn anyway. Conversely, it seems to me that the vast increase in available information has allowed more people to not crash and burn, whether they assent to the strictures of the system or not, because they are given a much more comprehensive view of realistic expectations.

Further, while most trans people I know have a lot of residual damage as a result of trying to discover themselves in an increasingly hostile society, the fact is also that they function about as well as everyone else, by essential criteria. To me, “having one’s shit together” means being “not maladaptive.” And contrary to the offensive generalizations made by some (not necessarily you), there really isn’t a zombie horde of “trannie freaks” lumbering about the country.

Also, I disagree about the relative cohesion of the trans community. The internecine conflicts I see now have been around for years, and there really wasn’t any “community” at all not that long ago. (Especially not among the fundamentalists, if you believe their story, since according to them, the only true goal is assimilation and disappearance.) It seems to me that we’re evolving.

Finally, I’m sure that your own case with respect to surgery is exactly what you say… and that you are exactly who you say. I was simply pointing out a pecking order - one which I believe is fraudulent, and best dispensed with altogether.