it has recently come to my attention that yet another faction of - well, i was about to say trans people, but i’d be stepping into another battle, so i’ll just say “people of non-traditional gender complexity” - hate me. it used to be that only the “early transitioners” - that is, those people who transitioned at a “young age” - lets say, before legal adulthood - hated me, because i appropriated their experience and silenced them. apparently, there’s a whole different set of people who now hate me, for grouping them with “the transgender community”. and i use quotes on purpose, because the trans community is quite the loose group of people who are guilty by association in many cases. the ubiquitous “umbrella”, of which we hear so much about.
i am speaking specifically of people who are afflicted with harry benjamin syndrome. never heard of it? neither had i, until recently. no, you’ll not find it in any medical journals, nor in the dsm-iv (the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders). then again, those who claim this disorder don’t describe it as a mental disorder, but a physical one.
Harry Benjamin Syndrome (HBS) is an intersex condition, which develops in the early stages of pregnancy and affects the process of sexual differentiation. What occurs is that the brain develops as one sex, but the body takes on the appearance and characteristics of the other sex. The difference between HBS and other intersex conditions is that currently there is minimal evidence of the syndrome until after the baby is born - sometimes even as late as adolescence.
the rest of the description can be read here.
one of the proponents of hbs blogs, here, where the author states here:
Biology tells us humans are divided, by sex, into males and females… there is no spectrum when it comes to sex, only male and female…
i have two problems with hbs, as i understand the arguments. i find it incongruent to claim that “biology tells us humans are divided, by sex, into males and females”, while at the same time invoking an “intersex” condition as a part of the same definition. as i see it, intersex conditions demonstrate that biology tells us humans can be divided into other categories between or outside traditional and/or stereotypical male and female categories.
the second problem i have is with the references to science behind hbs. ts-si, in the afore linked article states:
TS-Si.org will always try the science first and discard any personal beliefs that are contradicted by the scientific method and subsequent hard science research.
having always had a strong interest in science, and as a result, the scientific method, i know a little bit about how scientists prove a theory. a few studies on the bst of the brain, while show some evidence, do not a proof make. and while there are studies showing male and female brains show differences, there are no comprehensive studies on either male/female brain differences through the entire life cycle, or how the alleged brain differences play out in hbs/trans brains.
in other words, if one wants to set out to prove that hbs is a proven scientific medical intersex condition based in the brain (unlike the current intersex definition, which uses dna samples, showing how they differ from the general population of male and female, and actual samples of physical manifestations of the condition), i’d suggest the following conditions must be met:
- • lifelong monitoring of physical brain scans and mri’s of male and females
- • establishment of standards and parameters of male and female brains
- • lifelong monitoring of physical brain scans and mri’s of transsexuals, pre and post transition/hormones
- • a comparison of the aforementioned studies
- • all studies involved performed in double blind testing context
to me, that’s a scientific study, that offers some level of proof for a biological and/or medical condition. that’s not to say that i am or am not trans, or hbs, or what ever the flavor of the month is. frankly, i don’t know. the definitions of either are so nebulous, that i can fit rather comfortably in either, neither, or both. for the time being, i see myself as trans (which i prefer over “transsexual”, “transgender”, “tranny”, or “shemale”), and will lend my voice to the trans community in an effort to ensure our rights to employment, housing, medical treatment, and legal status in the same manor and level of everyone else who is seen as human.
I hate you…because you’re so damn awesome.
Comment by Marti Abernathey — January 25, 2008 @ 8:19 am
Me no hate you either. I check in at BIlerco from time to time but for the most part, I’ve been trying to avoid the GLBT sites, not because of anger or confusion mind you, but because I’m just tired. I’ve been so wrapped up in transition for four years that in many ways I’ve forgotten to just live.
I miss just being and I’m trying really, really, really hard to get back to that point. I’m also kind of tired of labels and I just want to be Kelly. You are Nexy and Marti is Marti and so on. We’re a big human family and for now, human is the only label I’m comfortable with for myself. As far as I’m concerned, live and let live, as long as you aren’t hurting anyone.
Transition has been very difficult for me and I just want my everyday life back. Some days I have that, today was one of them, and other days I just feel consumed by trying to become some kind of person that others want me to become. Ugh, it’s just tiring. My friends and family love me the way I am. My beloved dogs could care less as long as I still fill the food bowl up, throw the ball and save room for them in the bed. That’s about all I need.
PS NEXY, I’m trying to transition (no pun intended) my blog into something besides a trans oriented blog. I just want it to be a place for me to be able to spout off about the things I want to. Increasingly that is a desire to yell at the world that we’re all screwing this planet up. WHether people continue to read it if that happens isn’t up to me. I started my blog for me and let it become something for some of my readers. I’m taking the damn thing back.
“Good Night Now”- sorry for the long comment!
Comment by Kelly — January 25, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
In reading what I wrote, maybe it wasn’t totally clear what I wanted to say. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m not sure there is a right or wrong in this argument. My take on this controversy is that I want to be loud but about making sure that every single person has the right to just be happy and live a good life.
Comment by Kelly — January 25, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
heh, i bet you say that to all the girls
Comment by nexy — January 25, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
kelly, i agree that we’re all entitled to our opinions. and i totally empathize with your desire to live an “everyday life”. for me, transition enabled that. i don’t think i’d have transitioned if i thought i couldn’t have an everyday life. that was an improvement in the quality of my life.
and i totally support you taking your blog back. i like to think i post on a variety of topics, though as of late, i know i’ve been focusing on lgbt issues.
Comment by nexy — January 25, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
I think you need to bring sexy pink guns back.
Comment by Marti Abernathey — January 25, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
I have no problem with you ragging on my blog nor do I have an issue with you challenging a position I might have. But to intentionally lead your readers to a conclusion on a position I do not hold is losing an objectivity I thought your blog had.
My position on HBS has been crystal clear from the very beginning:
“HBS - HBS is Harry Benjamin Syndrome. We have no idea who coined this term. However, we do know that once HBS was referred to as transsexualism. As transsexual/transsexualism has now been hijacked by the transgendered, we are fine with the term HBS to differentiate the two groups. Those who are HBS are, and have always been, female or male though they were born with the biological and secondary sex characteristics of the opposite gender; they are driven to have surgery to correct the mistake. HBS is a biophysiological medical condition involving gender, i.e., one’s being either male or female. It is in no way associated with one’s sexuality/sexual preference. Those of us who are HBS are not transgender; we are innately either female or male.”
Your essay here, and your placement of the links insinuates that what the HBS site says, and what others with regard to intersex issues say, are my beliefs when I have not weighed in on them at all. I have never claimed to be intersexed, because I am not, unless one day in the future that is proven to be the case. I too believe in the scientific method and unless there is definitive proof out there somewhere that I have missed to definitively support the claims that transsexualism is an intersex condition, that science has not been forthcoming.
If you have read my blog, which you obviously haven’t, you would know that I use the term HBS/transsexuals in the sense of transsexuals who have innately known since birth of their condition and of which gender reassignment surgery is a driving force with them. That is the category I personally fall into and was the category Harry Benjamin termed true transsexuals. That is the extent of my use or support of the term. As I said, though it is not my term, it is as good as any to use in order to differentiate “true” transsexuals from the transgender movement who have hijacked the word transsexual, but of whom have no desire for surgery.
As for the physiology, maybe you studied different science than I did…a science where human beings were classified as male, female, and then a lot of other genders; I didn’t learn it that way. Or maybe you are a gender deconstructionists like Abernathey and want to blur the genders into oblivion; I subscribe to a binary system of male or female.
If you want to challenge my position, fine. But the insinuation you make, and the conclusion of my position that you direct your readers, i.e., that I support the HBS site, is a support I have never given and is not accurate.
I will continue using HBS/transsexuals as a term to differentiate between Benjamin’s true transsexuals and the transgendered concept until someone comes up with a better one.
Comment by Susan — January 26, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
according to the literature i’ve read on hbs, as indicated on the site i link to, which lists itself as “harry benjamin syndrome informational resource, hbs “is an intersex condition…”. if your interpretation of hbs is different than the informational resource, you ought to make that clear on your blog, which i have read. and i don’t remember coming across anything on your site which would dispute the resource’s claim. if you have stated that on your blog, then that is my mistake for missing it, and i apologize.
i don’t differentiate between what i understand you to categorize as “true” transsexuals and other trans people. to my mind, that is defining someone else’s identity, which is something i understand you yourself object to.
when it comes to gender and deconstruction, i tend toward the popular feminist view - that gender is a tool of our culture to place women in a lower subservient social class. and i believe that gender is a social construction.
i could argue that sex is a social construct too, but i also believe that sex can be defined in the context of reproductive function. and for anyone like me who has had bottom surgery, i’m outside that context. surgery has rendered me infertile. i did father a son however, so one could argue that i’m (or was) of the male sex.
i was diagnosed as a “true transsexual” when i first started therapy, fwiw. however, knowing what i know about how science defines sex, i can’t in all honesty, call myself “female” without some kind of qualifier(s). i am different than my two sisters, for example, on many different biological levels. those are the facts as i know them.
however, if you do see yourself as female, without qualifiers, that’s fine, though i don’t agree.
from a social perspective, i move through the world being perceived as a woman. i’m happily married to a man, and most people i interact with know nothing of my history. i’ve been fortunate to have been able to integrate back into society as a woman - many of my friends have not been so lucky.
i don’t believe, that from any perspective, sex and gender are as simple as you purport.
Comment by nexy — January 27, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Formally, it is here:
http://enoughnonsense.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-castand-our-position/
Throughout my site, in numerous places, I state the same position, including the very next paragraph from where you link. And I say:
“A favorite tact of the transgenders is to slam on Harry Benjamin Syndrome. It’s a political identity, they say. Well, no, it’s not. It is a reference to those transsexuals who are innately female and have known that since birth, and of which GRS is the only medical option.”
IF you have read my site, it is impossible to walk away without knowing that is my position.
“True transsexual” is not my definition, but Benjamins, who used it to describe those who are intensely transsexual, of which I identify. I don’t care what someone else wants to call themselves, if they settle on transgender that’s fine with me. If you do not want to make any differentiation between yourself, who you say was diagnosed as a “true transsexual” and a casual crossdresser, that is also fine with me. I do make that differentiation.
If you feel that the deconstruction of gender is just a “tool of our culture to place women in a lower subservient social class” and a “social construct” why did you opt for GRS, if I understand correctly that indeed you are post op. Why didn’t you just call yourself a woman and not be subjected to the status you imply you abhor? Why have surgery?
I haven’t indicated anywhere on my blog or anywhere else that I see myself as female with no qualifiers, only that I fit Benjamin’s definition of a true transsexual having known my entire cognizant life that I was born of the wrong sex…though in fact, and I will say it now, that is indeed exactly how I perceive myself, and always have. If you feel you are female on some “qualified”, less-than-natal level that’s fine. But, by not appreciating that I do NOT have that perspective I now ask who is defining whom? THAT lack of recognition and appreciation from the transgender is what I have an issue with. It is tantamount to a gay telling a straight, “you are gay but just don’t know it”, i.e., “you are transgender but just don’t know it”, or my favorite, “you are just as queer as the rest of us.” The issue is simply one of being categorized as something one innately knows is not the case.
You have every right to not perceive sex and gender as I do, whether more complex or simple. That is not in the least offensive to me.
Comment by Susan — January 27, 2008 @ 2:11 am
if one aligns them self with a particular group, especially a group that is relatively new and unknown, then one can expect that others will search out information on that group, and assume the information of the group applies to the individual who claims the group association.
see, i followed that link, and reread what you said, and when you say this:
“Those HBS who refer to themselves as trans are maladjusted and have not made the leap from being either pre or post operative HBS to simply being female or male.”
you are effectively saying you are “simply male or female” - no qualifiers. that’s pretty clear, based on the language you use, that you see yourself as female with no qualifiers. “simply female” = female with no qualifiers.
“If you feel that the deconstruction of gender is just a “tool of our culture to place women in a lower subservient social class” and a “social construct” why did you opt for GRS, if I understand correctly that indeed you are post op. Why didn’t you just call yourself a woman and not be subjected to the status you imply you abhor? Why have surgery?”
what does surgery have to do with gender? or perhaps we are using the terms differently. i see the term “gender” as a social status, and the term “sex” as a physical, biological, and reproductive status of ones body. so from a social standpoint, i am a woman, as i function in society as a woman. as far as surgery is concerned, i opted to have grs for many reasons - some of them social, in that i could have my i.d. paperwork legal changed to match how i function in the world, and i could use public facilities without disturbing other women - and some of them personal, in that i could have sex the way i wanted, and that i felt i’d have a better chance in finding a male life partner.
from my perspective, we talk about surgery way too much. what is between my legs is only the business of my husband and myself - unless i choose to put it on public display. i’ve never been in a ladies room or public changing room where that was the case, and even the gym to which i belong has private areas in which to change. my choice to have surgery is my own, and i can’t see how my genitals wholly define who i am.
you regularly ask “I now ask who is defining whom?” - you define trans people based on your understanding, just as i define you based on my reading of the hbs literature. we learn more about each other by asking questions, and by telling how we each might differ from the norm. we *all* make assumptions (stereotypes) about *everyone* we encounter - that’s the way social interactions work.
edited to add:
in our situation, from the perspective of most people, it doesn’t matter whether or not we’ve had surgery, or how we align ourselves. the bigots of the world see us as the same, no matter how far away from trans we distance ourselves. they will kill us just the same. i work with the trans community because i’ve been defined by the world *as trans*, despite how i may or may not define myself. the bigot who would want to kill you for having changed sex doesn’t care about your motivations or identity. only that you were born with a penis. and we can attempt to educate the world, but in the mean time, if one is gay or trans or hbs, we are seen as the same.
Comment by nexy — January 27, 2008 @ 8:36 am
You are absolutely correct when you say that I feel many pre and post ops never make the jump after transition to simply living their target sex/gender. I use sex and gender interchangeably. And you are also right when you indicate I see myself as female with no qualifiers. I said that in my response above. We have no argument there; perhaps their was a disconnect there in some way for I’m not sure why you addressed that.
On face value, you and I had GRS for similar if not identical reasons. I also agree that your physical status is between you and you husband. Your reasons…legal status, social status, physical status is telling for what you are saying is that you wanted to “to be and function as a member of the opposite sex, not only to appear as such.” That was why you were diagnosed as a “true” transsexual; that was Benjamin’s definition. Those who don’t opt for legal, social, and physical identification don’t fit that definition. And it was thos characteristics that were found to be the unique differences between the two.
Perhaps we should not open the can of worms related to your comment of having GRS so you could “use public facilities without distrubing women.”
My “who is defining whom” comment was with regard to you saying this:
“i can’t in all honesty, call myself “female” without some kind of qualifier(s). i am different than my two sisters, for example, on many different biological levels. those are the facts as i know them.”
That is fine if you feel that way about yourself. But then you go on to say:
“however, if you do see yourself as female, without qualifiers, that’s fine, though i don’t agree.”
So, again, because you see yourself as a “female with qualifiers”, implying that you are somehow less than female in some way, or female with an asterisk (and I do not mean that with any disrespect)…you see yourself as a “woman with qualifiers”. I don’t see myself in that way at all. When you say you can accept how I feel, but “…don’t agree” it is valid, you are defining me as something I am not…and that is my issue with the transgender construct…they do the same thing.
With regard to your “edited to add:” section. I agree, we are all seen as one and the same. I think way to little has been done to educate society on exactly what we are. They see all of us the same, no argument. I hold that we are not all alike, and that there are unique differences. Nonetheless, as you point out, that does not guarantee anyone, regardless, is not open to violence. However, and this has not generally been a popular stance, I don’t think the average person out there wants to kill or attack anyone under the TG umbrella simply because that is where they reside. I travel all over the states as an engineer, living in different areas from coast to coast, north to south, for extended periods of time, from several months to several years…and that is just not what I have seen. Nor do I think the statistics point to that either, at least I have not seen anything to support that…science, if you will. Though some, including the men in our lives of whom we have been intimate, may be taken aback when they discover our past, I don’t think those people’s first reaction is invariably to attack us…on ANY level, physically, socially, or intellectually/semantically.
Nexy, I enjoy this debate, however, it is not where we started. We started on the concept of HBS. On my blog, there have been comments linking to the HBS site: I did not respond. There have been suggestions that I follow a more specific path in using definitions, etc; I didn’t respond and didn’t follow the suggestion. I don’t support the HBS site that you link to, for like you and many, I think it goes too far on speculation, often with little hard science to back it up. And though I don’t think the issue of transsexuality has been definitively defined by science, I do think the science and research suggest transsexuality is a medical condition. On all of these issues, I feel semantics act a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
One can find a multitude of variations, “flavors”, and spectrums within the transgender.
However, their is a group of us to which I belong, who consistently share one commonality. And though those of us in this group may differ in what we feel the reason is for why we feel the way we do, we all have this single concept in common: we have always innately known from as far back as we can remember that our our mind sex/gender and our body sex/gender did not match, and of which gender reassignment surgery, as limited as it may be, is a driving force and the only option to put the two in sync so that we could legally, socially, and physically live in our target sex/gender. That was Benjamin’s definition of a true transsexual. And it is why, though it is not a term I came up with, I use HBS/transsexuals to describe us. To insinuate I support the HBS site you link to is inaccurate.
If those of us who blog are held accountable for every idea, proposition, theory, etc that crosses our pages simply because we don’t dispute each of them, then we are all convicted of guilt by association.
Comment by Susan — January 27, 2008 @ 10:50 am
“So, again, because you see yourself as a “female with qualifiers”, implying that you are somehow less than female in some way, or female with an asterisk (and I do not mean that with any disrespect)…you see yourself as a “woman with qualifiers”. I don’t see myself in that way at all. When you say you can accept how I feel, but “…don’t agree” it is valid, you are defining me as something I am not…and that is my issue with the transgender construct…they do the same thing.”
there’s a few points in here i’d like to address, and then i’ll get back to the original “where we started” issue.
there’s a common misconception that “different = less than”. i do see myself as different than say, my sisters. i don’t see myself as less than female. i’m simply a slightly different sort of woman than either of my sisters. yes, there’s an implication of less than, because our culture imposes that. i should perhaps make the distinction when i use difference.
next, we all process the world around us by using our current understanding of, well, what we know at that time. for example, when i speak about my son at work (as most women chat about their children in the normal course of social interaction), they assume that i gave birth to him. obviously, i did not, but we know that because we know i wasn’t born with a female body. my coworkers are defining me as something i am not.
this happens all the time in the real world. we *all* make assumptions about people all the time. perhaps you and i process that fact differently. i believe that i can understand how a person sees them self, respect that perception, but disagree with it. perhaps you don’t. if not, i hope we can agree to disagree on that.
i tend to take people at their word. if you tell me you reject the hbs site i linked to, then i accept that, and i apologize for making the association that i did. however, one does run the risk by labeling themselves, of being associated with the most common attributes of said association. by calling yourself hbs, people will search for hbs information, and assume, as i did, that the information is accurate.
when you didn’t respond to the links to that site in your comments, i took that to mean your agreement. i don’t believe that is an unusual reaction.
in hindsight, it seems we share quite a bit of ideology. it’s a shame we find ourselves on opposite ends of this discussion. perhaps the one or two differences in our views account for that. perhaps we can work toward resolution.
Comment by nexy — January 27, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Nexy…indeed different does not mean less, and I can appreciate what you are saying. One of the most unfortunate points I feel the transgender movement has issues with is exactly that, because some see themselves as different, does not mean either that others are “less” or that themselves are “more”. Too many times I have seen pre or post ops try to make that distinction only to instantly be branded an elitist, separatist, blah phobic, blah BLAH phobic, etc.
My take on HBS is not just what I am “telling” you, but what I have consistently written on my blog, literally from day one. However, in spite of how I have defined my use of the HBS term, it has become an avenue for many to cloud whatever message it is I may have. You are quite right, using the HBS label without disputing certain aspects and proposals presented on the original site in which it originates puts me squarely in the sights of critics. Honestly, I don’t think it would have made any difference whether I would have disputed the HBS site or not, unless I did so at the beginning, middle, and end of every single post. *L* Nonetheless, it is an issue I must address…and will.
Yes, we do seem to share quite a bit of the same ideology. I am not the gender militant many might assume I am. From Louisiana, a psychiatrist in Lafayette associated with the Reed Erickson Foundation in Baton Rouge diagnosed me transsexual in 1969. After my transition and surgery, I popped in to the mainstream and went on with my life. I have never advocated for anything and still do not consider myself such. But like many, after all these years, there is a change in the air that I am not comfortable with and feel I must speak out.
Thanks for your time, it has indeed been a pleasure, not to mention most refreshing to exchange ideas and positions in a civilized and respectful kind of way.
Comment by Susan — January 27, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
you are quite welcome. i enjoyed our exchange as well. feel free to stop by anytime.
Comment by nexy — January 27, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
[...] The Trans Wars [...]
Pingback by Even More Transinistas « Dented Blue Mercedes — January 27, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
> I don’t support the HBS site that you link to, for like you and many, I think it goes too far on speculation, often with little hard science to back it up.
And yet you spent considerable time on your own blog arguing against the very same point, in response to my simple assertion that “HBS may well be a real condition.”
Comment by Val — January 29, 2008 @ 6:44 am
Where I couldn’t be more sympathetic to HBS women in their struggle against the annexation by the trans movement, many of the positions they forwards would be very troubling to a feminist.
Strict male and female binary? How is this to be taken such that is does not limit women in our pursuit of having full access to the few rewards provided by society? How far does this go? Is a woman to have bodily automnomy or do HBS want to return to traditional highly polarized roles which restrict women. It’s very clear that biological sex occurs on a continuum. It is a binary in patriarchy.
One thing they have missed is that in a social sense, “female” and “male” are both socio-political terms. So one would have ask exactly what they mean by strict male and female binary?
IF HBS is an intersex condition occurring in nature then their own account of their own situation contradicts what they advocate.
I never have been a fan of LGB or queer poltics but I would definitely want them to be able to pursue fullfillment in life and I think that’s what our “agenda” is which is to create space in this whole for them without having the imposition of heteronormativity.
I don’t support the transgender movement, but as a woman, I have been subordinated by narrownesses like those of HBS advocates. The adherence and imposition of strict casting based on sex is singing the alto voice of patriarchy.
Comment by Rose — January 30, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
“ One thing they have missed is that in a social sense, “female” and “male” are both socio-political terms. So one would have ask exactly what they mean by strict male and female binary?
IF HBS is an intersex condition occurring in nature then their own account of their own situation contradicts what they advocate.”
thank you for you insight rose. your above quoted comment outlines exactly my own issue with the hbs position.
Comment by nexy — January 30, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
“One thing they have missed is that in a social sense, “female” and “male” are both socio-political terms. So one would have ask exactly what they mean by strict male and female binary?”
With no disrepect intended, I am not sure what has you confused. Though the transgender and feminist may see sex and gender as different, I think arguable society and the public at large does not. The gender binary is simply that, either male or female with regards to sex and gender.
I am interested in your point, might you explain?
“IF HBS is an intersex condition occurring in nature then their own account of their own situation contradicts what they advocate.”
How so? Again, I am interested in your point, but am not sure I understand it…might you explain this a bit more as well?
Comment by Susan — January 31, 2008 @ 5:00 am
“With no disrepect intended, I am not sure what has you confused. Though the transgender and feminist may see sex and gender as different, I think arguable society and the public at large does not. The gender binary is simply that, either male or female with regards to sex and gender.”
Actually my form of feminism sees sex and gender as being the same. But your quote is telling in this very sexist society. Feminist do not use mainstream society as a referent for our poltics. If we did, we’d be fine on pressuring women to have cosmetic surgery toward meeting male defined standards of beauty. To reitterate, feminists recognize this is a fundamentally sexist society and we do not use the very society we want to change as a model.
In your remarks for a strict female and female binary
you are not located in such a binary in subscribing to an intersexed condition.
Lastly, above, you referred to “inherent femaleness”, yet butch women do not exhibit innate femaleness. What you are calling innate femaleness, seems to be a collection of stereotypes about women.
Comment by Rose — January 31, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Nexy, in my post above I clearly say that I am not intersexed. And, no where do I claim to subcribe to it. I did say that though research has not definitively isolated what causes transsexualism, the indication is that it is a medical issue…
Is there something wrong with having cosmetic surgery? Is there something wrong with wanting to look attractive? Rhetorical question, actually. I see nothing wrong with either personally.
Actually, I was not talking stereotypes, though I see nothing wrong with stereotypical women.
Comment by Susan — January 31, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
susan, it seems your position is being conflated with the “official” hbs position again. as i mentioned, that’s one of the dangers of aligning with a group or ideology, with whom one does not agree with all the main positions.
i call myself “trans” because i believe that many of my own views align with many of the positions associated with the “trans community”. fortunately, when it comes to all things trans, there’s enough variation where i am able to differentiate any variance i may have with the “official” party line with some degree of legitimacy. since hbs is relatively new, people who claim an hbs alignment would have a more difficult time when they vary from the published viewpoints.
Comment by nexy — January 31, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
I suppose debate is impossible with someone who on the one hand refer’s to my “remarks”, yet on the other, not only ignores them, but postulates a position I do not hold.
Comment by Susan — January 31, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
“I did say that though research has not definitively isolated what causes transsexualism”
I think your basic premises are off. First of all you pathologize and make reassignment a “condition”. Secondly, after having made it a “condition” you treat it as it has a single cause.
I believe the child insisting that she is contraclassed is very different from the married man in mid-life who says he is a woman.
Comment by Rose — February 1, 2008 @ 7:23 am
“I believe the child insisting that she is contraclassed is very different from the married man in mid-life who says he is a woman.”
while there may be something to this, i think it’s important to understand that many married men in this era grew up with no knowledge that “contraclass children” were possible. in fact, children who expressed *any* contraclass behavior or inclinations were often severely beaten and “contratrained” into gender submission. kinda like what happens to young girls when they are trained into being “girls”.
and not that this sort of thing still doesn’t happen today, but there are at least safe places to go if a child exhibits that type of behavior and has to leave their home.
in 50 years, i’d agree with the above quoted statement, because there’s more acceptance and information available. 50 years ago, however, things were quite different.
Comment by nexy — February 1, 2008 @ 7:49 am
Rose, either you can’t comprehend what I have said, or you choose not to. Your selectively quoting me does nothing but indicate you are not interested in objectively talking about this, only wanting to “win”. All I ask is that you present my position objectively
You say I said this, and I did, kindasorta:
“I did say that though research has not definitively isolated what causes transsexualism”
When I actually said this, emphasis mine:
“I did say that though research has not definitively isolated what causes transsexualism, the indication is that it is a medical issue…
With regard to comment:
I believe the child insisting that she is contraclassed is very different from the married man in mid-life who says he is a woman.
I agree completely with that statement. I am more than totally skeptical of any person who suggests in middle age that some how they experienced an epiphany and realized suddenly they were female; actually I don’t believe them at all.
If, however, your argument is that one has to have transitioned in their pre-adolescence/adolescence/early teens regardless of when they were born, and those today of whom have transitioned later in life and had GRS are not valid for having done so, I couldn’t DISAGREE with you more…based on the same arguement Nexy uses above. To propose otherwise indicates to me you are either fairly young, completely illinformed, choose to ignore the fact, or all three.
Prior to the mid to late ’60’s, few had any notion of what transsexuality was. There was no internet. There was almost no literature available to the young TS. There were no talk shows…no Discovery Channel…no Health Channel. Prior to Benjamin’s The Transsexual Phenomenon which was published in 1967, there were no books or literature to speak of. No one had even heard of the term “transgender”, it wasn’t around yet. Though today at least the general public has heard the term transsexual, even if they might not know exactly what it is, back then if one would speak up that they were transsexual (or transgender) they would be met with a blank stare. Aside from a couple of gender clinics, any form of therapy or medical attention focusing on transsexuality was simply nonexistent. Information on any form of gender dysphoria - for all practical purposes - didn’t exist.
How do I know this? I was one of those who scoured every possible source I could find trying to figure out why my entire life, from as far back as I could ever remember, I felt innately female but didn’t physically appear that way. Being from a small rural town in Louisiana, I literally thought I was the only one on the planet like me. That may sound like cliche’, it is the truth, however.
Suffice to say, things are not like that now…as Nexy says above… “50 years ago, however, things were quite different” Yes, they were, quite different indeed.
Nexy also says above that in 50 years, she would agree with the statement you have made. Her point is well taken. I almost agree with it. As Nexy points out quite correctly, the issue then was one of information. That information, the information that was not available 45-50 years ago to almost anyone, is certainly available now.
Comment by Susan — February 1, 2008 @ 9:43 am
“while there may be something to this, i think it’s important to understand that many married men in this era grew up with no knowledge that “contraclass children” were possible.”
Au contraire. They know quite well.
” in fact, children who expressed *any* contraclass behavior or inclinations were often severely beaten and “contratrained” into gender submission. kinda like what happens to young girls when they are trained into being “girls”.”
That’s really not a possibility, Nexy. Yes, thy learn submission like other girls, but it’s not gendered internally at all.
“and not that this sort of thing still doesn’t happen today, but there are at least safe places to go if a child exhibits that type of behavior and has to leave their home.”
I would not consider an LBGT ghetto to be a psychologically safe place for such a child to go. Actually she’d probably be better off with abusive parents.
I wonder if you have been in such a position that you can speak speak to the issue?
Comment by Rose — February 1, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Hi Nexy, sorry for the ‘jack.
Susan,
I’m writing to you here because you’ll notice and you’d better have a look at this:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Jennifer_Usher_%28Usenet_Troll%29
That’s the three trolls who’ve been “fighting” on your side, for your cause: Diane Kearny aka Diane Lask aka Diane Arons, aka Dianna Melrose, Jennifer “Just Jennifer” Usher and Sue Ann Robins.
Like they say, you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Despite what’s happened between us I understand at least how it started: like I said, it was Diane who did her age old trick, calling me a man and a she male and a pervert etc etc. That was on your blog, when she joined our little exchange. Up to that point, we were just bitching at each other. Things began escalating after she joined, until they culminated in the Battle of Transfeminist (sorry- this is a post on the Trans Wars…)
I don’t claim to know everything about Sue, Jennifer and Diane, they mostly infested the usenet trans groups, like support.alt.srs and support.alt.crossdresers, but I did a bit of digging around and here’s couple of things you should know about your “allies”:
1. Diane “Kearny” only appears online after 2007. Diane “Lask” stops appearing at the end of 2006. Diane “Kearny” admitted she uses her “maiden name” on your site at the thread were we first met. The Harry Benjamin site Diane’s set up started its “activities” (sending a letter to APA and publishing an “HBS Symposium packet”) in 2007. Then she started spamming everyone and their little niece with “the facts about HBS” and, yeah, as you noticed, she tried to take over your site too. Still is.
2. Diane “Lask” never claimed to be intersex in any way, shape or form. Diane “Kearny” initially didn’t either, even though she was pretty vehement that HBS is intersex in a number of long-winded letters sent to numerous and varied recipients. I think she came up with it during our little scrap on your blog. I repeat: PAIS sufferers have an XY genotype and so never develop any female tissues such as wombs or ovaries.
3. Sue Ann never claimed to be XXY until a couple of years ago. For most of her “career” on usenet, she was a crossdresser, then an autogynephilic transsexual- now she’s a True Transsexual™ and claims she has kleinefelter’s.
4. Jennifer “Just Jennifer” Usher had her srs in 2003 or 04. Like Sue Ann, for most of her career she also was a crossdresser and even wrote crossdresser/ transvestite fiction. I don’t know when she turned True Transsexual™. Still looking into it. In any case, she’s a notorious usenet troll, who reached infamy for making 70 000 posts in a single lifetime.
Now, I don’t give a rat’s arse about extending hands and exchanging apologies any more, hope that’s clear. But you and Leigh are currently involved in a conversation that is very important to many people- including you. You’re trying to be serious and all, but you won’t make any progress unless you shed the trolls, for good.
You two’ve shown that you can actually keep the tones down (as in, here, above.) That is good for all involved. I care a lot for both the issues discussed and some of the people involved in the discussion who are very upset by it. I’m also royally pissed off by Sue’s and Diane’s claims of intersex. I’m not intersex (and I have the XY caryotype and typical male development to prove it) but I do have my reasons for caring. But never mind my motivation.
What’s yours? Despite everything that’s transpired between us, or maybe after a careful examination thereof, I don’t think your intention is to just kick some shit and stir fights. Your “allies” on the other hand, just have a personality complex from here to Iapetus and they’re all stirring fights.
So, you know, for the sake of progress and stuff, get away from those bozos.
Oh and- if you doubt my research on the three stooges, do your own digging but I warn you: wear gloves, and something to keep your nose pinched. If you thought my comments were vile, wait ’till you see the usenets.
Comment by stassa — February 1, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Sorry, I meant they’re all about stirring fights…
Comment by stassa — February 1, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Stassa…what would you like for me to do?
All of the blogs post these people’s comments…ALL of the blogs. I’m not gonna censor what they say as long as they don’t try to take my place over, or post some vile, totally inappropriate comment, or try to run ramshackle over my place. No one has done that, no one will do that, only one has tried.
Anyone, can post anything, with any perspective they like at my place…including you. My only requirement is that there be some kind of a point, and that when I read it I’m not ashamed to put it up due to its vularity…I’m just not going to let that happen…nor will any of the other blogs.
It doesn’t take a mentat to see that though I may have made an acknowledgement or two relative to what these people have said, just as the other blog owners have, I support little of what they post. Recently, on Transadvocate, I have not entered the debate at all. It’s childish, repetitive, and a waste of time to me.
Actually, I understand quite clearly your “shedding the trolls for good” comment…I appreciate you saying it and recognize it as the truth. Anyone that knows me certainly knows that I say “a spade is a spade”, meaning “what’s right is right”. I see the crap stirring that has gone on with Sue and Diane and don’t like it. All I can do is not participate in it. I didn’t participate in it in Trans Feminist…and not in Transadvocate when Sue went on…I turn off regardless of “sides” when I see argument for the sake of argueing.
I have made my position clear many times…including on YOUR blog. The extremists speak for themselves, they do NOT speak for me.
When I started my blog, a couple of people said to me “you need to do this”…”you need to do that”. And if you don’t, know one is going to read it.
My response?
This is MY blog, to voice MY opinions…if no one reads it, I could care less…and that’s the truth. I know nothing about blogs…the 8K hits I’ve gotten these first two months is probably a drop in the hat compared to most of the others. Doesn’t matter to me. I write what I want based on my experience and on the couple of issues that concern me.
Comment by Susan — February 1, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
> The extremists speak for themselves, they do NOT speak for me.
This is dishonest. You have posted a lengthy rant, accusing just about every “transgender”-affiliated blogger with collaborative bigotry because they did not take up arms against Marti’s rather pointed swipe at Sue - who you have effectively disowned - and yet you let Diane Kearney’s poisonous crap sit on your own blog without comment.
No one, of course, can dictate what you do and don’t permit. I have a pretty open policy myself. But don’t then pretend that you have any standing on which to dictate what other people should comment on to satisfy your ideological requirements, and don’t hang albatrosses around other people’s necks when you have some rotting on your own.
Comment by Val — February 1, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
> I suppose debate is impossible with someone who on the one hand refer’s to my “remarks”, yet on the other, not only ignores them, but postulates a position I do not hold.
It’s a wonder sometimes that you don’t experience debilitating symptoms, from that irony-overenriched blood of yours.
Comment by Val — February 1, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Go fuck yourself, Val…I’m tired of your shit.
Comment by Susan — February 1, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
i think any conversation that is civil, in which the participants strive for an honest exchange of ideas and thoughts, is, by definition, not a ‘jack. so no problem at all stassa.
and rose:
“Au contraire. They know quite well.”
“I wonder if you have been in such a position that you can speak speak to the issue?”
i wonder how someone who tells me what my experience is, can ask me if i can speak to the issue.
see, if you are telling me that i knew quite well, then i have to ask you if you’ve been in such a position that you can speak to this issue.
as far as my response to your question, no, i’ve never been in a position where i felt i had anyplace to go if i rebelled against my parent’s demanding insistence that i immediately stop exhibiting contraclassed behavior. the only place i knew of was the closet in my bedroom. i only knew that no one in my community acted (or seemed to feel) as i did, and it was made extremely clear to me that i was acting against god and judaism. jews don’t talk much about hell like the christians do, but you can be sure i heard about it as a child.
so not only were there no role models that i knew of who were trans, but to even exhibit minor gender variance was an offense to god, my parents, and my community. so i’m going to have to say, sorry, you weren’t there, you don’t know what it was like, and you’ll have to take my word on how i experienced my life. just like i take your word about how it was to be born and raised as a female.
Comment by nexy — February 1, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
> Go fuck yourself, Val…
Not being a mutant, it’s improbable.
Neither am I much concerned with your fatigue.
You are unremittingly hostile, and self-consciously dishonest. Which is also to say, by the way, that I credit you with enough intelligence to actually wield your rhetoric, unlike the people you have finally begun to distance yourself from, understanding that their scattershot lunacy reflects poorly on your own efforts.
It’s nice to see, at least, that you’ve given up concern-trolling, and are willing to be forthright and Anglo-Saxon in your contempt. The mask of reasonableness never really did fit you.
Comment by Val — February 1, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
I’m beginning to think you’re a fake, and a jealous fake at that…you have no life, you post on the blogs all friggin day long…no history that you mention…never relate an experience…never have a viewpoint…have no perspective from experience to contribute…only offer up criticism, and are seemingly dumber than a red brick, hugely insecure at the very least. You’re a certified troll who follows me around from blog to blog like a rabid cur, insulting me incessantly while disrupting everything you touch. Making fun of you over at Bilerico, they ask if you “drink too much coffee?”, I’d say that is the least of your problems. You are an attack dog in the worst sense.
Post 31…an attack…no perspective and nothing to contribute.
Post 32…an attack…no perspective and nothing to contribute.
Post 35…an attack…no perspective and nothing to contribute.
You creep, that’s all you do. You choose to believe and point out the points that you feel prove your points while ignoring anything else I might say. Ignoring you does not good, you just can’t help your sorry self.
I’m sick of you…
I get one and only one pleasure from you, and that is knowing I drive you crazy…I know you go to bed at night thinking about me…seething.
Comment by Susan — February 1, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
please, don’t make me shut down the thread. can we have a discussion without the personal attacks?
Comment by nexy — February 2, 2008 @ 12:09 am
I can, Nexy…as for Val…who knows…
Comment by Susan — February 2, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Swipe at Sue? Hardly. The whole trans wars thing, is rather tiresome.
Seething? Really, it’s the internet…who really cares? Other than playing comment mommy, it doesn’t effect me what anyone thinks of me.
Comment by Marti Abernathey — February 2, 2008 @ 12:14 am
Susan, Val is wielding Occam’s razor. If you don’t fortify the logic of your arguments, she’ll slice you to ribbons. But, let me explain:
You started the current phase of the Trans Wars single-handedly. 8000 hits in two months is plenty. You got them by getting into everybody’s face, with hard-boiled sarcasm, from the get-go.
Which, I might add, is what attracted the trolls, sure as shit the flies. And you may not have noticed but they’ve followed you, or Leigh, around, like a pack of hyenas. What I “want you” to do about them is irrelevant btw. I understand you’re new on the whole net discussions thing, but the rule is: Do Not Feed The Trolls. You got that right when you banned me no?
As about agendas- you must understand that, you are turning into a straw giant yourself. The “activists” haven’t seen such an obvious target to attack and prove themselves relevant since the Westboro baptists (since Danae brought them up.)
And yeah, cut Val some slack. She’s been one of the voices of reason for too long. She’s combative, yeah, but you must have expected that, when you came out of the gates all guns blazing yourself. And she’s not actually speaking on behalf of any nebulous “umbrella” or organisation. She’s speaking for herself, just like you.
Nobody would be yelling at you though, if you stopped being such a cow girl yourself. Now, I don’t have no problem with attitude. I can actually respect it- with some conditions though. One has to be, you have to accept that attitude begets the same. You flame people, you’ll get flamed back. It’s the way of the net. If you don’t know how to overlook irony and personal attacks, don’t start them yourself. Easy peasy, yeah?
Now smooch up and pat yourselves on the back, or nexy’s gonna have you all banned- and that’s the end of it. And who wins? The trolls win.
Oh, and- don’t talk to me about transadvocate. Read my blog and take the hint. Ja? You can troll a lot of people a lot of the time, but you can’t troll the troll- not unless you’ve reached level 61. That’s “Legendary”, btw. As in: Ye Goblyn Queenne, Legendary Eater of Fools for Breakfast since You Were Peeing your Diapers (no, not you Susan.)
Comment by stassa — February 2, 2008 @ 4:05 am
> I’m beginning to think you’re a fake, and a jealous fake at that…
I would think the same of you, if it weren’t for your apparent narcissistic personality disorder, which is a common sequela of transsexualism:
> I get one and only one pleasure from you, and that is knowing I drive you crazy…
Comment by Val — February 2, 2008 @ 5:31 am
In all seriousness, I will respond to one specific - and typically dishonest - point of Susan’s.
I do not in fact spend the majority of my time tracking her around, and I have - particularly recently - put a substantial amount of energy into presenting a very clear (but nuanced) viewpoint on the main Transadvocate threads… which of course was melted down into self-serving slag by Leigh, Susan’s compatriot.
The similarity between my own online presence and that of Sue’s for instance is demonstrably nil (and I refer here to the mutually acknowledged troll, Sue, not Susan).
Susan knows this, of course, but manufactured outrage suits her purposes better.
One of the reasons, in fact, that I don’t really troll, is that like Susan my own stamina is limited. But I probably also sleep better, knowing that I’m not a constant liar.
Comment by Val — February 2, 2008 @ 5:51 am
“so not only were there no role models that i knew of who were trans”
Why on earth would anyone want a trans role model?
Comment by Rose — February 2, 2008 @ 11:05 am
> Why on earth would anyone want a trans role model?
Why indeed, since trans people are so utterly and irretrievably loathsome?
Comment by Val — February 2, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
That last comment was meant to have a sarcasm indicator. Let’s see if this works:
</ sarcasm >
Comment by Val — February 2, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Stassa, I’m a big girl and can certainly take care of myself, including handling the worst of the trolls.
Someone who has no perspective, is the first to pick apart what someone else says, has no, or relates no life experience, is only interested in criticism, has no alternate point of view, is not intested in discussion only one sentence and phrase “come-backs”, and has no unique perspective is a pest…I generally can ignore pests.
Comment by Susan — February 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
“Why on earth would anyone want a trans role model?”
for the same reason young girls look up to female role models, jews look to jewish role models, boys look to male role models, and so on. most people i know look for members of society like themselves who excel, as a model for which they can strive. i’m surprised i have to explain that.
and yeah, what val said.
Comment by nexy — February 2, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
> Someone who has no perspective, is the first to pick apart what someone else says, has no, or relates no life experience, is only interested in criticism, has no alternate point of view, is not intested in discussion only one sentence and phrase “come-backs”, and has no unique perspective is a pest…
One of the identifying features of a zealot is strict adherence to an absurdly narrow view of reality, no matter how easily falsifiable.
Comment by Val — February 2, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Quite true, Val.
When one is relating one’s own experiences and then offering a perspective and point of view based on them, it hardly constitutes a view of reality…it is reality as based on the experience.
Where is your experience?
You never relate one.
Where is your point of view?
You never give one.
Where is your perspective?
You never offer one.
No one here even know what your point is…if you have one, might you give it?
Or are you simply content to spout your criticism under the guise of a limited and quite flawed intellectualism based on how you would like for things to be, rather than what they are?
Comment by Susan — February 2, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Sure
Here’s my perspective.
If you are woman-identified, 53 percent of the worlds population is a role model.
Comment by Rose — February 2, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
i don’t recall suggesting that i am “woman-identified”.
Comment by nexy — February 2, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
It wasn’t difficult to guess from what you said earlier.
Comment by Rose — February 2, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
that there were no trans role models? or people who expressed any degree of variance from the strict gender roles enforced in the community? i’m sorry, i’m confused with what you are saying.
Comment by nexy — February 2, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
> Where is your experience?
> You never relate one.
> Where is your point of view?
> You never give one.
> Where is your perspective?
> You never offer one.
Of course, none of this is true, and like the rest of your rhetorical gambits you seem to think that if you repeat it enough, and with sufficient belligerence, it will become true simply by fiat. Have you ever been a politician? You seem to think like one.
> No one here even know what your point is…
You persist in speaking for other people with an authority you simply do not have. It is possible that you do not know what my point is, but I expect that most people who are not as fixated as you on anti-transgender orthodoxy have probably gotten the point. I say “possible”… but as usual I think you also understand quite well, but cannot admit it without giving ground in your absurd little war.
All that said, I’ll supply you with a couple of pointers.
First, it is not necessary for me to have an independent point in order to have standing in a debate. Opposition to you is sufficient. You have put forward several propositions regarding the nature of transsexual and transgender identity and relation, in the form of multiple lengthy tirades. I believe that your propositions are not merely wrong but wrong-headed, based on false premises and supported by dishonest argument. I think that while the concept of transgender may have its problematic points, you do real harm to the concept of transsexualism and to real transsexuals with your ideological podium-pounding.
Further, I have in fact replied at length in several areas, not just in sound bites, and as part of some of those replies have discussed some of my own real experience. That you are too lazy to have paid attention is not really my problem, but I will not reiterate any of it here, nor will I ever go into much more detail - though I may at times discuss other experiences - because I am not an exhibitionist… I don’t carry my surgical and sexual history around like a neon name card. And I have been on the internet far too long to not know full well just what the consequences are, of letting too much guard down.
Finally, my opinion in the major topic can be (inadequately) summed up as this:
“Transgender” is neither a false category nor as necessarily categorical as transsexual fundamantalists seem to think, and its alleged association with Virginia Prince hasn’t been relevant in decades.
“Transsexualism” is a broader category than transsexual fundamentalists will admit, and their (your) ugly, narcissistic paranoia - your apparent need to define everything but yourself out of your little fortress - erases real transsexuals.
LGBT is a shaky social and political alliance that works in some domains and not in others. But most of the people who actually operate within its framework - as opposed to fulminate against it online - seem to understand that it is an alliance, not an identity, and have more respect for the boundaries it deals with than do the people who rail against it.
Comment by Val — February 3, 2008 @ 5:55 am
Yeah, well, what you say is clap trap…period. And full of the classic personal attacks you are known for. You simply can’t help yourself.
I have one, and only one premise: There are a group of us who are true transsexuals, as Harry Benjamin defined that term, and we resent being included in the transgender GLBT construct. And, after years of being silent as the GLBT set claim to us, we have decided to speak up. Those are the one’s I speak for.
You call that “…not merely wrong but wrong-headed, based on false premises and supported by dishonest argument.”
How is is it wrong and wrong-headed (????) to hold the position that the vast majority of transsexuals hold, that is having GRS and then merging into the mainstream?
You say that is a “false premise”…how so? Do you think I am the only one who doesn’t want attention called to post op transsexuals?
Do you think I am the only post op transsexual who doesn’t want to be represented by the GLBT?
And WTF is “dishonest” about holding that opinion?
No, Val, it’s simply attack, attack, attack…personal attacks. As you say, you don’t have to have an “independent point of view”, just “opposition to you (me)”. In this thread alone:
Post 31 - ATTACK - you accuse me of “collaborative bigotry”.
Post 32 - ATTACK - no point at all, just blatant insult.
Post 35 - ATTACK - “unremittingly hostile, and self-consciously dishonest” and “The mask of reasonableness never really did fit you.
Post 41 - ATTACK - “if it weren’t for your apparent narcissistic personality disorder”
Post 42 - ATTACK - “one specific - and typically dishonest - point of Susan’s” and “a constant liar.”
Post 48 - ATTACk - “One of the identifying features of a zealot is strict adherence to an absurdly narrow view of reality, no matter how easily falsifiable.”
Post 49 - ATTACK - “(your) ugly, narcissistic paranoia - your apparent need to define everything but yourself out of your little fortress - erases real transsexuals.” and “you are too lazy to have paid attention”
And all of this diatribe for holding the position I state at the top of this comment.
You admittedly don’t have or need a point of view, all you need is your opposition to what I say. Now THAT makes a lot of sense! Geez.
If you respond in real time to people like you do on the net, it’s a wonder someone hasn’t slapped the living daylights out if you. Your comments, no only to me, but to anyone who disagrees with your position (whatever it is and whenever it is that you have one) is always insults and a juvenile name calling. You don’t debate or discuss anything, you just “oppose” with no other position.
Comment by Susan — February 3, 2008 @ 9:31 am
i think both sides of this debate could be accused of attacking the other. when i’m attacked, i try to answer that attack not with another attack, but with an honest rebuttal, point by point.
not that i’m always successful - there’s no question that it’s difficult to remain civil when one is attacked. but when i’m following an on-line debate, the person who is able to maintain their composure without resorting to attacks always seem to get their points across effectively, while the attacker just looks like a jerk.
Comment by nexy — February 3, 2008 @ 10:00 am
> You admittedly don’t have or need a point of view,
Except that I have presented more than one, in some detail and more than once.
> Your comments…is always insults and a juvenile name calling.
And this is also demonstrably not true. The simple fact is that you’re dishonest, Susan, as I have pointed out on multiple occasions, and apparently it’s pathological.
Anwyay. Pot/kettle and all that. You make much of my alleged refusal to actually supply any substantive rebuttal, but is your own consistent tactic.
No matter. Unlike you, I don’t need to compulsively belabor a point.
Bored now. Have fun
Comment by Val — February 3, 2008 @ 10:29 am
> i try to answer that attack not with another attack, but with an honest rebuttal, point by point.
Sorry… I needed to come back here to make a copy of my own responses, and this little example of Susan’s tendency to twist things just popped out at me.
Susan’s comment:
“Post 31 - ATTACK - you accuse me of “collaborative bigotry”.”
My original comment:
“You have posted a lengthy rant, accusing just about every “transgender”-affiliated blogger with collaborative bigotry”
I clearly said that Susan was accusing us of “collaborative bigotry” on the “why didn’t we all condemn Marti” thing.
It’s hardly worth doing point-by-point when your interlocutor either can’t keep the argument straight, or, as I maintain, is an unreliable antagonist.
Comment by Val — February 3, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
“If you are woman-identified, 53 percent of the worlds population is a role model.”
Women learn from each other.
I guess you could want a trans role model if you are trans-identified. I don’t know why anyone would want a trans role model ?
Comment by Rose — February 11, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
“I don’t know why anyone would want a trans role model ?”
are you suggesting that because *you* don’t know why anyone would want a trans role model, that there is no reason why anyone would want a trans role model?
i was under the impression that among other things, feminism sought to have the world listen to what women have to say, instead of relying on people who are not women to talk for them. does this not also relate to trans people? shouldn’t trans people have their own narratives, that ought to be taken as their truths, spoken from first hand experience? experiences that no one but trans people have, and are therefore unique to the trans community, and seen as valid?
Comment by nexy — February 12, 2008 @ 9:59 am
“i was under the impression that among other things, feminism sought to have the world listen to what women have to say, instead of relying on people who are not women to talk for them. does this not also relate to trans people?”
Let me answer your question in the following fashion, women do not call ourselves “trans people”.
Comment by rose — April 1, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
i didn’t realize that people who call themselves “women” couldn’t have intersecting identities. thank you for educating me.
Comment by nexy — April 1, 2008 @ 9:15 pm