there is no “nurture vs nature” - they are one in the same, two sides of the same coin.

the further back i focus my lens, the more alike we are.

And that’s an injustice.

Some things *are* essentialist. Like being gay. Or being trans. Or being of a particular skin color.

We are biological creatures — everything is the result of biochemical reactions generated in a form developed by biochemical processes.

Some things simply are, lol.

but *social concepts* shouldn’t be essentialist — your “male energy” example ( a social construct if ever I saw one).

Masculinity, femininity, blah blah blah…

Manifestion is physiological, expression is social.

That is, the fact we are trans is physiological. It has to be — the standard idea is that gender identity (or Sex identity) is inherent.

The way we express it it social — language is social, the concepts of male and female, at their core, are based in language — they are the social conventions we’ve assigned to the essentialist idea behind being trans.

(and pardon me, I am drunk as all hell halfway through my second Sam adams beer tonight as I’ve been handed an eviction notice)

The reimer case was the most public proof — but there were studies saying the same thing as the actual outcome of that for years before the truth came out.

Aas for the surgery aspect, well, I just think to the idea of non trans privilege:

1) Strangers don’t assume they can ask me what my genitals look like and how I have sex.

2) My validity as a man/woman/human is not based upon how much surgery I’ve had or how well I pass as a non-Trans person.

3) When initiating sex with someone, I do not have to worry that they won’t be able to deal with my parts or that having sex with me will cause my partner to question his or her own sexual orientation.

I know I use it that way when talking to radical feminists who tell me I can’t ever be a woman, or that trans women have “male energy.” That’s about the only time, though.

I just think of my self as a lot more essentialist than most folks

Could be why I say the ENDA that passed really is just special rights…

And yeah, it is common in the mainstream. I wish it weren’t, but society’s pretty essentialist by default.

yeah, i’d hate to think that my entire personhood is based on my once having had the ability to borrow $10,000 for a surgical procedure.

susan’s sentiment is quite common in the mainstream however. reading through the comments related to on-line news stories regarding trans people, commenters often define ones sex (or status) based on genitals. i can’t count the number of times i’ve read comments that suggest a trans person should only be able to use the ladies restroom after surgery - then we’re “transsexuals”, as opposed to mere “transgenders”. i hate to think of the trans man’s plight, in which surgical technology is nowhere near the technology available to trans women. and way more expensive.

it also reminds me of a conversation i had with a guy, with whom i had a brief intimate encounter. i was recently post-op, and he was asking me about my then boyfriend, who i’d been dating before and after my surgery. he asked if my boyfriend was gay, since he was dating me before surgery. of course, the guy didn’t consider himself gay, since i was post op at the time. it struck me as quite incongruent that my boyfriend’s sexual orientation would change simply by *me* having surgery. that somehow doesn’t work for me.

so no, it can’t be about the surgery.

Yeah, with stuff like that to worry about, the fear that associating T with the GLB movement delegitimizes trans women with vaginoplasties strikes me as pretty minor and out of touch. It’s not all about the surgery - it can’t be all about the surgery.

I’m well aware that a single court decision can set precedence with regard to a post-op’s, or anyone’s, rights. In the Fall of 2004 multiple states (17 states as I recall, but don’t hold me to that) slammed the GLB’s same-sex marriage legislation across the board in multiple states. Same-sex marriage certainly did not all of a sudden become a hot issue in that year; it has been at the top of their agenda for years.

You are right, however, my assertion is naked classim. I concede that the majority agree with you, i.e., trans activism does not focus on what post-op trans women need. On the contrary, trans activism continues to dilute the legitimacy of post-ops by lumping everyone under the GLB transgender construct.

I believe I could debate the hitory of trans activism with anyone, Lisa. Certainly I have not lost touch with the realities of trans politics now days. The issue is that I don’t agree with the “focus” of it, to use your word. Many of us who were transsexual and now post-op, object to being associated with the GLB and lumped into an umbrella group that includes crossdressers and others who present an alternative “gender expression”. Your premise that my opinion was formed because I am have not read up on these issue and have lost contact with the realites of trans politics is flawed; it’s BECAUSE of my knowledge of current and past trans activism that I am concerned.

I’m sure any response will become more and more personal. Not to worry. There is no delusion on my part. I fully realize nothing will change in the trans advocate arena.

I’m well aware that a single court decision can set precedence with regard to a post-op’s, or anyone’s, rights. In the Fall of 2004 multiple states (17 states as I recall, but don’t hold me to that) slammed the GLB’s same-sex marriage legislation across the board in multiple states. Same-sex marriage certainly did not all of a sudden become a hot issue in that year; it has been at the top of their agenda for years.

You are right, however, my assertion is naked classim. I concede that the majority agree with you, i.e., trans activism does not focus on what post-op trans women need. On the contrary, trans activism continues to dilute the legitimacy of post-ops by lumping everyone under the GLB transgender construct.

I believe I could debate the hitory of trans activism with anyone, Lisa. Certainly I have not lost touch with the realities of trans politics now days. The issue is that I don’t agree with the “focus” of it, to use your word. Many of us who were transsexual and now post-op, object to being associated with the GLB and lumped into an umbrella group that includes crossdressers and others who present an alternative “gender expression”. Your premise that my opinion was formed because I am have not read up on these issue and have lost contact with the realites of trans politics is flawed; it’s BECAUSE of my knowledge of current and past trans activism that I am concerned.

I’m sure any response will become more and more personal. Not to worry. There is no delusion on my part. I fully realize nothing will change in the trans advocate arena.

* Social Security will out you. Yes, as an “counter-terrorist measure” if you’re in an employer’s records as female, and SS has you as male, they’ll send a no-match notice, outing you to your employer.

Fortunately, that won’t be an issue after 2009, because of the

* Real ID act which forces a standarized identification system across all 50 states, and will force those trans people who currently live in states that allow them to have their preferred sex on their ID cards to have their “current” sex, forcibly outing everyone who hasn’t had surgery yet, but at least has gender-congruent ID.

And of course there’s

* ENDA, and the need to protect trans people - regardless of operative status - from job discrimination.

Trans people who can afford SRS are in the best shape, and don’t need to be the focus of any activism, nor do we need to blame people for pointing out the legal realities of the day. You may believe that the laws against same-sex marriage wouldn’t have any affect on heterosexual couples with at least one trans person, but it has been shown that when these marriages are challenged, it’s not just Texas, and they can be challenged.

Now, Michael Kantaras was lucky, in that he got a judge who was sympathetic, or didn’t want to make a decision that would allow trans men to marry cis men, I don’t know…but he had to take it to appeal.

The Littleton case isn’t the only time this has happened, and if same-sex marriage is legal, even though trans people should be legally treated as a member of their preferred gender, laws against same-sex marriage can’t be used to annull marriages or affect divorce proceedings.

What we need is something like the UK’s gender recognition act, which protects trans people’s privacy by allowing us to alter our birth certificates and other identification without the requirement to have surgery first. Right to privacy alone should make that a priority.