.....

[lolitashana]

...

[dbev]

Hi sweetie

[hotcar]

Hi lolitashana!!

[lolitashana]

....

[LTR_Seeker]

welcome to forum

[lolitashana]

....

[menacingmethods86]

:shock:

[lolitashana]

......

[praetor]

Welcome aborda little babe.

[AsiaMei]

welcome.

[Solitary Brother]

Hi All...New to site.Im a 21 yr old pre op...Wil post pics soon....

I know I am gonna catch SO much shit for this but.............
Your not a "PRE-OP".


When someone says "PRE-OP" that usually means there is some VISABLE
feminization of features......you have none.
"PRE-OP" usually means your further along than a crossdresser or a transvestite or drag queen even a butch queen up in drags.......alas your level of feminization is FAR below even these.
Im not trying to be mean but your just a guy.........you have NO feminine features NOTHING to alert the casual or even the astute observer that you are a girl.
Allanah Star is a pre-op so for you to call yourself that is laughable in my opinion your just a guy.
Dont you have any pride as you photographed yourself looking a fool?
I would advise you to FIRST stop posting pictures and go on hormones and get hair removal treatments......take at LEAST 6 months and then come back.
Im being real with you.....many of these guys here will praise you even though YOU LOOK JUST LIKE A GUY.
They just want to suck your cock and be plowed by ANYTHING with a dick.
Im trying to help you look better because you just look a mess right now you are a SISSY......turn the page and become more of a girl then come back.

[DL_NL]

Well, that certainly did the job to chase the TS away. Nice.

[Silcc69]

Damn I wonder why this shit got edited out.

[dgs925]

Damn I wonder why this shit got edited out.'cuz geekmeat felt like jumping down the OP's throat. As with a lot of people on this board, he feels a little better about himself after being an asshole to someone else.

Way to go!!

[DL_NL]

Sure helps you remain 'solitary'.

[Solitary Brother]

I am glad you have taken my advice for your own good.....in six months time you will be thanking me.
These guys just use images to feed their lust.
Your just a thing to them.
You can network with other girls and get it together and THEN come with some photos.
Im not trying to hurt you but to help you and you putting yourself out here looking like that is not helping you at all.

[dgs925]

I am glad you have taken my advice for your own good.....in six months time you will be thanking me.
These guys just use images to feed their lust.
Your just a thing to them.
You can network with other girls and get it together and THEN come with some photos.
Im not trying to hurt you but to help you and you putting yourself out here looking like that is not helping you at all.If it makes you feel better to think you were being nice, that's good. If it makes you feel better to think that you gave advice, and that advice was followed, good for you.

You were actually being a dick to the OP. But hey, on this forum it is ok to bash cross-dressers because they are just men right?

[xfiver]

Hi All...New to site.Im a 21 yr old pre op...Wil post pics soon....

I know I am gonna catch SO much shit for this but.............
Your not a "PRE-OP".


When someone says "PRE-OP" that usually means there is some VISABLE
feminization of features......you have none.
"PRE-OP" usually means your further along than a crossdresser or a transvestite or drag queen even a butch queen up in drags.......alas your level of feminization is FAR below even these.
Im not trying to be mean but your just a guy.........you have NO feminine features NOTHING to alert the casual or even the astute observer that you are a girl.
Allanah Star is a pre-op so for you to call yourself that is laughable in my opinion your just a guy.
Dont you have any pride as you photographed yourself looking a fool?
I would advise you to FIRST stop posting pictures and go on hormones and get hair removal treatments......take at LEAST 6 months and then come back.
Im being real with you.....many of these guys here will praise you even though YOU LOOK JUST LIKE A GUY.
They just want to suck your cock and be plowed by ANYTHING with a dick.
Im trying to help you look better because you just look a mess right now you are a SISSY......turn the page and become more of a girl then come back.

Wow! What a douchebag!

[Quiet Reflections]

i gotta say Solitary Brother was right on this one. there may have been a better ways to say it but why sugar coat things he posted his picture in a public forum so he had to expect some kind of judgment good or bad. He knew what he looked like when he put it on here and he knew he wasn't pre-op in the true meaning of the term.

[Coroner]

i gotta say Solitary Brother was right on this one. there may have been a better ways to say it but why sugar coat things he posted his picture in a public forum so he had to expect some kind of judgment good or bad. He knew what he looked like when he put it on here and he knew he wasn't pre-op in the true meaning of the term.

Well said. Some people are unreasonable and can´t get along with the truth. I don´t know, Solitary could have said it nicer but he spoke the truth.

[SarahG]

My memory may be incorrect here, seeing that the original posts are deleted so I cannot refresh my memory.

BUT, i seem to recall in the OP, the post read something to the effect of "New to site. Im a 21 yr old pre-op shemale"

Who introduces themselves as a shemale!? :?:

I suppose its POSSIBLE that someone who is ts would introduce themselves that way. But its not exactly a term that has been reclaimed the way say, dyke has been by lesbians (and even then, how many lesbians publicly introduce themselves saying "hello, I am a dyke"? How many gay guys publicly introduce themselves saying "hell, I am a faggot"?).

If my memory is not being accurate here, someone tell me I am in the wrong thread and I'll eat my hat and apologize. Er, I don't actually use hats, let me start over- I'll take back this post and say I was mistaken/having a brain fart if I'm wrong here.

[dgs925]

No, sarah you are definitely right. The OP then proceeded to show some pics, which showed a man dressed up in women's clothing.

If I were to guess about the OP's state of mind, which I tend not to do, I'd say he was having some fun dressing up and feeling all kinky and just had to share with the internet. Not too different from our recent friend who shaved his legs and told us about it.

But that's the thing about dealing with other people is that you never really know what's going on in their head. Lot's of ladies do post on here early in their transitions and surprisingly enough they often look like men in women's clothing. That's why I try to keep my thoughts to myself sometimes.

All the time I open threads here where people have posted pictures asking what people think of them. If I have something positive to say, I speak, if not I clost that tab and open another thread.

[SarahG]

-dup-

[SarahG]

No, sarah you are definitely right. The OP then proceeded to show some pics, which showed a man dressed up in women's clothing.

Clothing? I don't remember seeing any clothing. Granted the pics were dark & blurry, but IIRC all of the pics were nudes. except for the close up face shot.

[FREEFALLL666]

I am glad you have taken my advice for your own good.....in six months time you will be thanking me.
These guys just use images to feed their lust.
Your just a thing to them.
You can network with other girls and get it together and THEN come with some photos.
Im not trying to hurt you but to help you and you putting yourself out here looking like that is not helping you at all.No fucking shit sherlock.. A porn site dedicated to lets face it masturbation and you expect people to see anything else? You seem to have issues, is it because you find attraction in early stage hormone treatment girls and it makes you feel dirty? Im sure after having a wank over one of the girls you go and say prayers for forgiveness and break out the bleach and scouring pads....

[FREEFALLL666]

No, sarah you are definitely right. The OP then proceeded to show some pics, which showed a man dressed up in women's clothing.

If I were to guess about the OP's state of mind, which I tend not to do, I'd say he was having some fun dressing up and feeling all kinky and just had to share with the internet. Not too different from our recent friend who shaved his legs and told us about it.

But that's the thing about dealing with other people is that you never really know what's going on in their head. Lot's of ladies do post on here early in their transitions and surprisingly enough they often look like men in women's clothing. That's why I try to keep my thoughts to myself sometimes.

All the time I open threads here where people have posted pictures asking what people think of them. If I have something positive to say, I speak, if not I clost that tab and open another thread.
No the thing is this being a Porn site it points out the perfect girls. Or those that are supposed to be (There are MANY that I could get quite err nasty about like Mint, who seriously finds an anorexic looking body with two deflating hot air balloons on the chest sexy? Hell those ridges on this supposed perfect girls tits make truck tires look smooth).
When you walk up the street how many attractive women do you see in say 300 yards? Probably about 4 in a busy city..

[dbev]

Shana is a very sweet person and I think that this person was seriously upset...

[FREEFALLL666]

Shana is a very sweet person and I think that this person was seriously upset...It is quite disturbing that people say they respect a community or imply that they do, then go all self righteous the OP didn't deserve derision.

[MacShreach]

t how many attractive women do you see in say 300 yards? Probably about 4 in a busy city..


I definitely think you must be in the wrong city. I mean, I've been to cities like that too, I just avoid 'em.

[tstv_lover]

hmmm - why did I try to join a thread with the subject "...." lol

[MacShreach]

When someone says "PRE-OP" that usually means there is some VISABLE
feminization of features......you have none.
"PRE-OP" usually means your further along than a crossdresser



This statement is so wrong it defies belief. Since the OP has now vamoosed, and I can't remember what was said, though I remember looking and thinking "Gonna just bite my tongue" let's be clear: the term "pre-op" in this context is normally linked to the term "transsexual", and transsexuals and crossdressers are two different things, not points on a developmental line.

{ADD}

I really only have a vague recollection of the OP pics so I would not want to comment specifically, but I would like to make it clear that although I think SB is wrong in his association of transsexuals and crossdressers, that does not mean I think that the general thrust of his post was wrong. Blunt, yes, but who am I to criticise?

[MacShreach]

Wow! What a douchebag!

I cannot believe a scumsucker like you would have the fucking gall to call ANYONE a "douchebag."

:smh

[MacShreach]

hmmm - why did I try to join a thread with the subject "...." lol

You like a challenge maybe?

Anyway there is apparently no risk here of hurting the OP's feelings, since the OP has buggered off....

[Alyssa87]

Solitary.
I do not think you helped this person.
You may have intimidated them. and embarrassed them away from this site, but not helped.

We both know that although transvestites and crossdressers aren’t mentioned on the tagline with
"HungAngels Ts Trannys Tgirls Shemales Transsexuals and Ladyboys Forum Index",
there are plenty of guys on here who are into them.
There are even tv's and cd's here that have the 'hot hung angel' thing under their username.

The OP could have gotten along just fine here.
…HERE

Now had this person asked for REAL WORLD living tips for passing or feminizing, THEN all your messages would have helped.

I know watching the guys drool over bricks w. dicks can be frustrating, but maybe you could try to shake it off.
I think this should be a place of inclusion.
At the end of the day, we all know that the slope is slippery in the TG world.
Most of us are seen as equally strange and unacceptable no matter how far along in transition we are.

[MacShreach]

Solitary.
I do not think you helped this person.
You may have intimidated them. and embarrassed them away from this site, but not helped.

We both know that although transvestites and crossdressers aren’t mentioned on the tagline with
"HungAngels Ts Trannys Tgirls Shemales Transsexuals and Ladyboys Forum Index",
there are plenty of guys on here who are into them.
There are even tv's and cd's here that have the 'hot hung angel' thing under their username.

The OP could have gotten along just fine here.
…HERE

Now had this person asked for REAL WORLD living tips for passing or feminizing, THEN all your messages would have helped.

I know watching the guys drool over bricks w. dicks can be frustrating, but maybe you could try to shake it off.
I think this should be a place of inclusion.
At the end of the day, we all know that the slope is slippery in the TG world.
Most of us are seen as equally strange and unacceptable no matter how far along in transition we are.

I think this turned out badly. I remember looking, as I said, and not saying anything; now the pics are gone. I don't recall the OP being slimy or unpleasant, in fact the text seemed quite innocent, which is one reason why I did not say anything, but again I can't comment because the OP has gone.

Clearly there are girls who post here who are right at the beginning of their transition and they can't be expected to look as gorgeous as you, for example. I think SB was very blunt; excessively so maybe.

However I am also aware that not very far from here, Juliana Dominguez is complaining quite rightly about a very unpleasant experience that happened to her at the hands of the US Immigration authorities, who called her a man.

IMO as long as transsexual women and CD/TV men are associated in the public mind, that is going to continue to happen. Some of us care about what happened to Juliana, who is a really lovely girl, and, I am afraid, some of the blame lands on crossdressing men.

I really don't see a way around it; I have discussed this with a number of people in the straight world that might surprise you and in fact, a proportion that surprises me, will go along with the idea that someone is a woman born in a man's body. I f the situation is explained properly, they have genuine sympathy for transsexual women, and, though they might not understand it, they can accept it.(Funnily enough this level of acceptance, if you like, seems more common amongst women than men amongst those I have spoken to. I don't know why.)

However, in all the discussions I have had, no-one has ever shown that level of sympathy for crossdressing men. As soon as that aspect comes up the reaction is immediate-- "Oh, is that what you're talking about?" Followed by instant switch-off. End of conversation. End of sympathy for transsexual women.

I would love to see women like you and Juliana have nice regular lives and not have your worlds shattered by prejudice and ignorance. I would love to see a situation where a transsexual woman was, I don't know, seen with a film star, and it didn't even make the news--"No big deal, the guy went out with a woman, so what?" I would love to see a situation where a transsexual woman could marry a man and nobody bats an eye, or looks at her the way they might a woman who was 200lb and came down to 100lb--"She had a real struggle, but my look at her now! She's lovely!" (You can call me romantic if you like.)

But I am sorry, as long as transsexual women are perceived in the public mind as men who dress up in women's clothes, none of that is going to happen, if it ever does.


:shrug

[2009AD]

, as long as transsexual women are perceived in the public mind as men who dress up in women's clothes, none of that is going to happen, if it ever does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBvc-WTFRA

[Alyssa87]

Solitary.
I do not think you helped this person.
You may have intimidated them. and embarrassed them away from this site, but not helped.

We both know that although transvestites and crossdressers aren’t mentioned on the tagline with
"HungAngels Ts Trannys Tgirls Shemales Transsexuals and Ladyboys Forum Index",
there are plenty of guys on here who are into them.
There are even tv's and cd's here that have the 'hot hung angel' thing under their username.

The OP could have gotten along just fine here.
…HERE

Now had this person asked for REAL WORLD living tips for passing or feminizing, THEN all your messages would have helped.

I know watching the guys drool over bricks w. dicks can be frustrating, but maybe you could try to shake it off.
I think this should be a place of inclusion.
At the end of the day, we all know that the slope is slippery in the TG world.
Most of us are seen as equally strange and unacceptable no matter how far along in transition we are.



IMO as long as transsexual women and CD/TV men are associated in the public mind, that is going to continue to happen. Some of us care about what happened to Juliana, who is a really lovely girl, and, I am afraid, some of the blame lands on crossdressing men.

I really don't see a way around it; I have discussed this with a number of people in the straight world that might surprise you and in fact, a proportion that surprises me, will go along with the idea that someone is a woman born in a man's body. I f the situation is explained properly, they have genuine sympathy for transsexual women, and, though they might not understand it, they can accept it.(Funnily enough this level of acceptance, if you like, seems more common amongst women than men amongst those I have spoken to. I don't know why.)

However, in all the discussions I have had, no-one has ever shown that level of sympathy for crossdressing men. As soon as that aspect comes up the reaction is immediate-- "Oh, is that what you're talking about?" Followed by instant switch-off. End of conversation. End of sympathy for transsexual women.




:shrug

thats really interesting.
i dont know if i've spoken to as many people about TG girls.
sounds like you have had quite a few discussions.

the few that i have had turned out badly mostly.
Maybe people's intelligence and tolerance levels drop a bit on this side of the pond.

(one old friend comes to mind)
I explained what is is to be T. That its not a gay guy that simply wants to look like a girl. Its a real biological disorder that separates the mind and body in utero. I think she nodded her head in polite agreement, and proceeded to hold on to her original ideas.

Truly, i think thats representative of the general public.

Which is why im so private and withdrawn from people.
I project the sense that i dont want to be bothered.
It's received pretty clearly. If people can tell im T, they certainly dont say or ask anything about it.
I'm just not gonna play teacher to a proverbial group of giggly preteens.

[dbev]

It is quite worrying that I can't reach Shana in any way...

Shana registered here because I suggested it, and I also said that some suggestions could have come from the girls who are a long way ahead than Shana in the transition process.

And, yes, I also mentioned to be ware of comments.

I really don't care about the gender label that I/we could attach to Shana or that Shana self-attaches.

It is difficult even to write without mentioning his/her or she/he, but this is the situation so far... confused... and as confused as a femme guy (Shana's words) could be.

Being honest is a thing, being rude is another one.

I myself told Shana that there was potential to develop and a long way to go... in a sweet and sensitive manner...

[MacShreach]

, as long as transsexual women are perceived in the public mind as men who dress up in women's clothes, none of that is going to happen, if it ever does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBvc-WTFRA

Heh, Maury I was aware of. I don't know whether it's available on this side of the pond or not-- not on my service anyway.

[MacShreach]

sounds like you have had quite a few discussions.



Oh, I'm well known for holding provocative opinions. It can't be translated into any representative sample, because the people I choose to spend time with tend to come from an artistic, literary or scientific background and to be quite well educated. Therefore a minority point of view.

I'm not dumb enough to imagine I'd find the same level of acceptance down the local football pub.

:shrug

That's a long way away.

However, in UK one very prominent Labour Member of Parilament, Shaun Woodward, whose sister is a transwoman, and who switched from the Tory party over their stance on gay rights, but who is himself straight, did a lot of good in the run-up to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. He managed to raise the debate to the point where more people ('kay, not many people, but more) were discussing this issue in some sort of commonsense terms, despite the woeful inability of the media to even find the right words (or pronouns.)

Going back, even though much was made of her "outing" in the infamous News of the World, the model Tula Cossey was well known to be a transwoman long before, and indeed she was actually "outed" twice, quite a feat really--there is absolutely no question most people knew her status when she did the "Some Like it Hot" video with Power Station for example and her 1977 campaign for Life Helmets was trailed in the media on the strength that she was a transwoman.

People did and do talk about these things.

I'm not saying transgender and transsexual women don't have it tough here, but I think there is a certain "you're allowed to be different" attitude in Europe.

Maybe we're just decadent. :lol:

[Silcc69]

Solitary.
I do not think you helped this person.
You may have intimidated them. and embarrassed them away from this site, but not helped.

We both know that although transvestites and crossdressers aren’t mentioned on the tagline with
"HungAngels Ts Trannys Tgirls Shemales Transsexuals and Ladyboys Forum Index",
there are plenty of guys on here who are into them.
There are even tv's and cd's here that have the 'hot hung angel' thing under their username.

The OP could have gotten along just fine here.
…HERE

Now had this person asked for REAL WORLD living tips for passing or feminizing, THEN all your messages would have helped.

I know watching the guys drool over bricks w. dicks can be frustrating, but maybe you could try to shake it off.
I think this should be a place of inclusion.
At the end of the day, we all know that the slope is slippery in the TG world.
Most of us are seen as equally strange and unacceptable no matter how far along in transition we are.


:lol: THat was to fuckin funny.

[SarahG]

hmmm - why did I try to join a thread with the subject "...." lol

She didn't, the thread title was changed once she editted out all her posts.

On HA you can't delete posts but you can edit posts to remove thread names, polls, pics, post content etc.

[SarahG]

I really only have a vague recollection of the OP pics so I would not want to comment specifically, but I would like to make it clear that although I think SB is wrong in his association of transsexuals and crossdressers, that does not mean I think that the general thrust of his post was wrong. Blunt, yes, but who am I to criticise?

I think part of what triggered SB's reaction wasn't that she was (I am assuming) early in her transition, but the fact that she didn't accurately explain what her situation was.

There are many threads on HA where people say "I am new here, I haven't transitioned yet/just started my transition, here are some pics as I am now and be gentle" and usually that doesn't go down so salvagely.

A bunch of nude pics for someone early in their transition, combined with a post that said something to the effect of "I am a pre op shemale" and all kinds of red flags went up in my mind when I read the OP.

SB simply had no idea if she was TS or TV, and probably assumed she was a TV because where she was in her transition (assuming she is TS)... in which case claiming to be a "shamale" probably didn't help his line of thinking, and then reacted the way he did to point out that if she is a TV, she shouldn't be saying she's preop. This goes back to the whole "some people get pissed off when TVs pretend to be TS" theme of the shaving thread. Personally, I think the logic doesn't work in assuming she was TS or TV from the OP- such little information was presented I honestly didn't have a clue, just thought "ok... this thread isn't going to go well" to myself and silently walked back out of the thread.

[SarahG]

Solitary.
I do not think you helped this person.
You may have intimidated them. and embarrassed them away from this site, but not helped.

I don't think the OP was here looking for help, otherwise I agree with the rest of your post.

I really do think HA needs a sticky to say "THIS IS NOT A SUPPORT SITE", with a bunch of links to sites, forums, and yahoo groups that are better suited for that. It would probably prevent a lot of threads (like the shaving thread) from going salvagely.

[MacShreach]

such little information was presented I honestly didn't have a clue, just thought "ok... this thread isn't going to go well" to myself and silently walked back out of the thread.

Yup, that's what I thought, and did, too. I left the thread until it turned into those intriguing little dots.

[MacShreach]

I really do think HA needs a sticky to say "THIS IS NOT A SUPPORT SITE", with a bunch of links to sites, forums, and yahoo groups that are better suited for that. It would probably prevent a lot of threads (like the shaving thread) from going salvagely.

I completely agree. It would be a big help for those who genuinely come here for assistance. And as a sticky thread it could be added to over time.

There used to be a lot more sticky threads than there are now, could a mod stick an oar in here?

[SarahG]

I really don't see a way around it; I have discussed this with a number of people in the straight world that might surprise you and in fact, a proportion that surprises me, will go along with the idea that someone is a woman born in a man's body. I f the situation is explained properly, they have genuine sympathy for transsexual women, and, though they might not understand it, they can accept it.(Funnily enough this level of acceptance, if you like, seems more common amongst women than men amongst those I have spoken to. I don't know why.)

However, in all the discussions I have had, no-one has ever shown that level of sympathy for crossdressing men. As soon as that aspect comes up the reaction is immediate-- "Oh, is that what you're talking about?" Followed by instant switch-off. End of conversation. End of sympathy for transsexual women...

But I am sorry, as long as transsexual women are perceived in the public mind as men who dress up in women's clothes, none of that is going to happen, if it ever does.

Very well written,

I am pretty sure you've agreed with me on this before, but to repeat it, the problem isn't that some guys like to put on hose to jerk off- as that's a pretty damn tame and innocent fetish, compared to the weird shit out there- I honestly don't see why people react so harshly to it. I mean really, it's not like the ending scenes in Broken The Movie here. The only way I can see someone trying to pose a legitimate grip against TVs, isn't in pointing out their existence, but in pointing out their attempts to falsely pass themselves as TS.

However, I would point out that the TS versus TV thing is only one of many stereotypes that can be a problem. I don't think the "putting on hose to jerk off" stereotype coming from TVs is the sole cause of everything that is wrong and unethical in the world facing trans people. There are certainly misconceptions and stereotypes from the TS-portion of the community alone are cause for problems.

For instance the late transitioners who lead seemingly normal & successful lives for decades, only to suddenly at age 50 (married and with children, 401ks, assets, and savings) go fulltime over a weekend after going on a clothes spending spree. That not only advances further misconceptions regarding whether or not its a choice, but makes it look like a rash impulsive choice (i.e. waking up one morning- no ffs, no hrt, no electro and suddenly its "I will be a girl as of monday"). And this is only one of many issues (I could go on, but it wouldn't really fit into the scope of this thread).

[SarahG]

sounds like you have had quite a few discussions.


Oh, I'm well known for holding provocative opinions. It can't be translated into any representative sample, because the people I choose to spend time with tend to come from an artistic, literary or scientific background and to be quite well educated. Therefore a minority point of view.

I'm not dumb enough to imagine I'd find the same level of acceptance down the local football pub.

:shrug

That's a long way away.


The atmosphere of who you're around makes all the difference. But so does their perception of the individual in question. Someone who isn't trans, talking about trans issues- really has a lot more potential in going far with the conversation, because then it's not personal and people can talk without getting too passionate, or being influenced by the appearance of whoever is in front of them.

Let me explain that better... if a trans person started talking about trans issues with someone who knows they're trans, then anything that is unusual about that trans individual becomes an issue. If they're known to be sexually "easy"- the nontrans person in the conversation may think "hmm, maybe those stereotypes about trannies being sexual freaks is true, I know she gets around." Even what the trans girl is wearing becomes an issue in that sense, especially if the nontrans individual thinks the trans girl in the conversation "doesn't dress like a typical girl their age" (even if by that, it is meant that the girl is simply gothic).

[MacShreach]

Someone who isn't trans, talking about trans issues- really has a lot more potential in going far with the conversation, because then it's not personal and people can talk without getting too passionate, or being influenced by the appearance of whoever is in front of them.

Let me explain that better... if a trans person started talking about trans issues with someone who knows they're trans, then anything that is unusual about that trans individual becomes an issue. If they're known to be sexually "easy"- the nontrans person in the conversation may think "hmm, maybe those stereotypes about trannies being sexual freaks is true, I know she gets around." Even what the trans girl is wearing becomes an issue in that sense, especially if the nontrans individual thinks the trans girl in the conversation "doesn't dress like a typical girl their age" (even if by that, it is meant that the girl is simply gothic).

Very fair point, that. I'll have a bit of a cogitate before I say any more.

[dbev]

It is quite worrying that I can't reach Shana in any way...

Shana registered here because I suggested it, and I also said that some suggestions could have come from the girls who are a long way ahead than Shana in the transition process.

And, yes, I also mentioned to be ware of comments.

I really don't care about the gender label that I/we could attach to Shana or that Shana self-attaches.

It is difficult even to write without mentioning his/her or she/he, but this is the situation so far... confused... and as confused as a femme guy (Shana's words) could be.

Being honest is a thing, being rude is another one.

I myself told Shana that there was potential to develop and a long way to go... in a sweet and sensitive manner...

It's quite interesting that nobody replied to what I wrote...

[SarahG]

It is quite worrying that I can't reach Shana in any way...

Shana registered here because I suggested it, and I also said that some suggestions could have come from the girls who are a long way ahead than Shana in the transition process.

And, yes, I also mentioned to be ware of comments.

I really don't care about the gender label that I/we could attach to Shana or that Shana self-attaches.

It is difficult even to write without mentioning his/her or she/he, but this is the situation so far... confused... and as confused as a femme guy (Shana's words) could be.

Being honest is a thing, being rude is another one.

I myself told Shana that there was potential to develop and a long way to go... in a sweet and sensitive manner...

It's quite interesting that nobody replied to what I wrote...

I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't respond to it because it would add fuel to the fire so to speak.

"It is difficult even to write without mentioning his/her or she/he, but this is the situation so far... confused... and as confused as a femme guy (Shana's words) could be."- that kinda reinforces SB's initial reaction. If someone is a femme guy, they shouldn't be calling themselves preop- preop is a TS term that's used not just by TS people, but TS people who intend to get SRS in the future (versus a nonop, which is a TS person who plans on not having srs in the future).

All those red flags triggered SB calling Shana out, assuming the OP was a TV & misusing terms. Was SB out of line? His post certainly wasn't tactful, but given the problems on here lately with posters trying to assert TS and TVs are "one in the same," I understand the reasoning behind calling someone out for using a term like preop incorrectly... or introducing themselves as a shemale, etc. I don't agree with the way he said it, per say, but I understand why he felt the need to respond to say "ok, something doesn't compute here- these terms mean___, which based on your post, you're not" and so on. At which point, if SB was inccorect, Shana could have responded and say "look, I probably didn't introduce myself accurately, my real situation is __, sorry for the confusion/STFU" and that would have been the end of it. But if Shana was "just a confused femme guy" then that kinda proves SB's point (as blunt and untactful as it was).

As to pronoun use, I try (don't always succeed, but I try) to use gender neutral pronouns by default when I don't know someone's situation. It's pretty easy, just use words like "they" instead of he/she, their instead of his/hers. I.e. "They said something to the effect of____" or "their post stated." I know it wouldn't pass muster as proper english, but its the easiest way around it that I know of. The alternative is never using pronouns, but sometimes that confuses people even more.

If Shana came here looking for help, or is a "confused femme guy" trying to find his way/to deal with gender issues- no one would have known from the first post. Coming in here, posting a bunch of nudes, with not even a paragraph to explain the situation- you can expect people will get the wrong impression. Look at how many of the girls here for self promotion don't introduce themselves like that.

The mistake, on SB's part, is assuming that appearances have anything to do with it. Some TS people never pass, some TV people pass extremely well- and all the usual shades of gray inbetween. It simply is not possible to tell "if someone is tv or ts" by pictures. You can't even use pumping, implants, or HRT to distinguish between TS and TV people. The biggest misconception on the forum, besides the delusion that ts & tv are the same thing, is the idea that "you become ts by transitioning to a certain point." That's just not realistic, and I believe MacShreach already responded to state that in this thread (I recall him posting something to the effect of "TV and TS are not different points along a line of transitioning, you don't go from one to the other.")

Hopefully, this can be taken as a learning experience for everyone and move on- I will say that if Shana had made an intro post just like that one (nudes & all) on a support site, Shana would have been promptly banned. Most of the sites that deal with that don't tolerate posts like that, they're not sex/porn boards.

[dbev]

UH UH

The label issue again and again...

[MacShreach]

UH UH

The label issue again and again...

My experience here and elsewhere is that the only people who object to proper classification and terminology are people who are actually promoting another, obscured, agenda.

Sarah is correct on all points, and I refer you back to her post.

I would just reiterate that a crossdressing man and a transsexual woman are two different phenomena. No one is saying one is more valid than the other, but I certainly am saying that the attempt to conflate the two is at best disingenuous and at worst actually harmful, in this case to TS women.

[dbev]

UH UH

The label issue again and again...

My experience here and elsewhere is that the only people who object to proper classification and terminology are people who are actually promoting another, obscured, agenda.

That is?

Which agenda?

[SarahG]

UH UH

The label issue again and again...

My experience here and elsewhere is that the only people who object to proper classification and terminology are people who are actually promoting another, obscured, agenda.

That is?

Which agenda?

That depends on the person. McShreach isn't claiming that "everyone who hates lables is part of this big common agenda/conspiracy"- far from it in fact.

Why might someone want to blur the lines between TVs and TSs?

-Conservative politicians do it, in their case their agenda is to make the general public think all TS people are "guys who put on hose to jerk off" aka "perverted/sexually deviant" in order to justify maintaining trans discrimination.

-Newspapers do it for sensationalism, if they call all trans people TVs, then anytime someone who is trans does something news worthy (even if they're actually TS, and not a TV) it lends better to sensationalism... which leads to better newspaper sales. This doesnt tell the full story, newspapers can absolutely have political agendas in addition to agendas in favor of selling papers. The mass media is the oldest political institution our country has.

-conservative churches do it because it (to them) helps lend credibility to the notion that all trans people are sick, sinful deviants

-some medical "professionals" do it because they see SRS as amputating perfectly healthy tissue/organs and feel that if they can label all TS people as really being either "fem gay guys" or sexually deviant perverts- then that justifies 1- making access to trans health care harder, 2- removing certain trans health care procedures, 3- justifies aggressive, violent patient abuse under the guise of therapy. Why do you think Bailey wrote that all ts people are either ultra fem gay guys or AGs? Do you know what the Clarke Institute has done in the past to treat trans people? They treat it the way clinics treat addictions (Clarke Institute today is an addiction treatment center in addition to a gender clinic- that's no coincidence), by chemically induced sickness, verbal abuse, physical violence- etc. See this link (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/the_gender_gulag_voices_of_the_asylum.php).

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

[dbev]

My point of view comes fron John Stuart Mill: liberty, that is different from licence and abuse, and stops right before my sphere of liberties.

And Alexis De Tocqueville said something interesting too...

[SarahG]

My point of view comes fron John Stuart Mill: liberty, that is different from licence and abuse, and stops right before my sphere of liberties.


Which is exactly the point.

There is much at risk when we're talking about the establishment & definition of labels, because of the way they can then be used to hurt people.

In the case of TS people, all these people claiming TVs and TS people are one in the same, are inflicting direct, tangible harm into the "sphere of liberties" of TS people. It's why trans discrimination is so vastly legal, it's why the medical community makes it so hard for ts people to get health care.

It does not require physical force in order for someone's sphere of liberty to be compromised.

[MacShreach]

My point of view comes fron John Stuart Mill: liberty, that is different from licence and abuse, and stops right before my sphere of liberties.

And Alexis De Tocqueville said something interesting too...

How does that impact on the proper categorisation and classification of phenomena?

from Chambers:

taxonomy: noun (taxonomies) 1 biol the theory and techniques of describing, naming and classifying living and extinct organisms on the basis of the similarity of their anatomical and morphological features and structures, etc. 2 the practice or technique of classification. taxonomic adj. taxonomist noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from Greek taxis arrangement.

The understanding of the living world that we have is based on a very clear categorisation of phenomena.

On J S Mill:

From "On Liberty"

"[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." (OL, 51-2)

The misrepresentation of CD/TV men as transsexual women, by those men themselves, by their supporters and by the reactionary forces that Sarah has given examples of above, DOES CAUSE REAL HARM TO TRANSSEXUAL WOMEN. Mr Mill himself is clearly in agreement that the liberty of such people to continue their misrepresentation can legitimately be interfered with to the ends of preventing such harm to transsexual women.

Thank you.

[MacShreach]

by chemically induced sickness, verbal abuse, physical violence- etc. See this link (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/the_gender_gulag_voices_of_the_asylum.php).




Thank you for that, Sarah. I thought I had got pretty inured, but that actually made me feel physically sick.

It doesn't hurt to be reminded from time to time.

[SarahG]

by chemically induced sickness, verbal abuse, physical violence- etc. See this link (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/the_gender_gulag_voices_of_the_asylum.php).




Thank you for that, Sarah. I thought I had got pretty inured, but that actually made me feel physically sick.

It doesn't hurt to be reminded from time to time.

The APA has never taken a stance against reparative/aversion therapy for trans patients. Never.

It's still considered an acceptable treatment practice, you won't get your license revoked for using it on a patient.

[dbev]

Frankly, I never thought that such an harm was coming from Transvestite and Crossdresser people, never...

Apologies for my ignorance...

I still was at the old point: call you what you like, do what you like if you like it and it doesn't oblige me to do anything or to suffer from it.

And the "suffer from it" part, my dear co-writers, seems to be so ample that the other things may be so compressed that nothing is left.

How to balance everything, including people's feelings?

[SarahG]

Frankly, I never thought that such an harm was coming from Transvestite and Crossdresser people, never...

Generally, it doesn't. It's the general public that are the problems here. Like I've said in the past, I honestly don't understand what the big deal is over TVs, its a pretty mild and harmless fetish.

For whatever reason, the general public simply goes irrational whenever things involving sexuality come up... most especially if its what they would consider unusual sexuality. Remember all the people who got pissed off when Jackson showed her tit for a split second during a superbowl half time show? I still haven't figured out why people were so pissed off about that, so people saw a tit on TV- that's a big deal why!? People need to grow up.

With this prudish mass hysteria over sexual content, the general public simply does not tolerate much in the way of sexual-anything outside the bedroom. Hence the TV censorship, obscenity laws, porn regulations, controversy over sex ed, etc. When it comes to trans issues, all they have to do is get the impression we're sexual deviants- even when its not true, and it becomes "I don't want those trans freaks using the same bathroom as my wife/daughter/sister/mother, I don't want them working with kids, I don't want them in schools, I don't want them living near schools." Unfortunately, TVs "fit the bill" for this hysteria reaction, even through I wouldn't consider tv's to be perverts...

There is reason to be upset when people try to blur the lines between TVs and TS's, after all it's been the cause of so much in the way of discrimination, violence, and medical malpractice. But, most of the people guilty of those intentional efforts are ones with agendas (as I already talked about). When it comes to chasers, TVs, and other people "in the community"- I seriously doubt the intentions are to inflict harm. Some of the problem is lack of education on the subject (i.e. SB thinking you can tell a TV from a TS based on appearances/pictures), some of it is due to botched attempts at validation (i.e. "if I say ts people start off as tvs, then I won't feel like i am gay when i admit to liking tv's"). In either case, to react with hostility is at the very least, counter productive.

As I said in the shaving thread, the most disturbing thing about THAT thread was not that a TV "came on a TS site to talk about his fetish while asking for shaving advice." No, the disturbing thing with that thread was how belligerent and hostile forum members became to the original poster. Their reactions showed that, even on HUNG ANGELS, people had bought into the propaganda that the social conservatives are spewing, and have started to believe that TVs are "sick", perverted, sexually deviant fetishists. These hate tactics are obviously extremely potent if a community of TS people & chasers (of all people) have started to actually BELIEVE those hurtful views.

That brings me to this point,



How to balance everything, including people's feelings?

I don't believe it does require hurting people's feelings, that's why I didn't agree with the manner in which SB responded.

His point was valid, but his method of thinking fell short (like I said, you can't tell TVs and TS's apart using pictures), and his untactfulness left much to be desired (to put it lightly).

There is no reason to get hostile towards TVs, femme guys, or anyone else for that matter to the degree shown in these threads. There's nothing wrong with calling someone out when they say something that doesn't make sense, but to start jumping on their appearance isn't necessary, nor is it prudent to employ any other kind of hostility until it is known whether or not the individual in question is TRYING to inflict harm.* It is perfectly reasonable to assume that people aren't educated enough to know the difference between all the various terms, labels and conditions (to say nothing of their implications). Why not let people explain themselves before deciding to become belligerent?



We should all try to remember, that even the chasers here are deemed "sexually deviant" by "mainstream society" and the idiots the APA has put in charge of rewriting the sexuality sections of the DSM for the upcoming DSM5 want to make tranny chasing a mental illness. That's right, the stigmatization that society has inflicted TVs with, that they've been trying to affected TSs with, will soon even be adapted to try to affect guys into tgirls.

They want to call this "condition" Gynandromorphophilia for people into tgirls, and "Andromimetophilia" for people into tguys.

Everyone on this forum is being targeted by these social conservatives... and all these guys (into tgirls) are next. The policymakers at the APA aren't even trying to hide this fact.




* Of course, there will be some who will want to inflict harm, who want to perpetuate the stereotypes that we're all sexually deviant. Sometimes these belligerent agendas DO come from inside the community. Look at all the gays who have tried to prevent trans acceptance, then there was that TV in Canada back around 2004 who lobbied to END HRT COVERAGE UNDER NHS in Ontario because they "were cured of all their problems by anti-anxiety medication" and therefore felt it the best course of action for treating all trans people, TS included, to save money for the taxpayers.

[MacShreach]

<snip>

There is reason to be upset when people try to blur the lines between TVs and TS's, after all it's been the cause of so much in the way of discrimination, violence, and medical malpractice. But, most of the people guilty of those intentional efforts are ones with agendas (as I already talked about). When it comes to chasers, TVs, and other people "in the community"- I seriously doubt the intentions are to inflict harm. Some of the problem is lack of education on the subject (i.e. SB thinking you can tell a TV from a TS based on appearances/pictures), some of it is due to botched attempts at validation (i.e. "if I say ts people start off as tvs, then I won't feel like i am gay when i admit to liking tv's").



Sarah, although I'm quoting you, I am not actually talking TO you in the following, though I always welcome your insight. I have too much respect for you not to realise how close this is to you.

It is clear that there are a significant number of men who are attracted to a specific male attractor, the penis, who are also, due to their societal conditioning, incapable or unprepared to accept that a man who lusts after a male sex organ is indulging in a homosexual desire. In order to be able to deny that this means they are no longer straight they displace their attraction, and become attracted to men who have feminine characteristics, which they then latch onto. Homosexual transvestite men are able to satisfy this desire, and a brief trawl of the first few pages here will reveal several threads concentrating on this. Now all this is quite harmless and while some of the TV men may be really twanging the wire in their "femininity," no harm is done, as long as NEITHER party is being put in a position where they are doing things that conflict with either their gender identity or their sexual orientation.

What then appears to happen is that some men become fixated on the idea of a penis attached to an apparently "real" woman-- ie not a man in drag whose femininity all comes out of a lingerie drawer; at the same time, the objects of the desire are actually men, and men are very competitive; so we see some transvestite men who are genuinely extremely passable. Such men may even indulge in body modification and hormonal therapy to further sculpt their bodies. (And furthermore, many of these individuals are very charming and indeed, "attractive," not merely in the way they look, but in their comportment.)

At the same time there are many transsexual women, especially those who transition later, who really do not have the advantage of physical femininity.

What this means is that it is completely impossible to tell, looking at someone's picture, whether that person is a transsexual woman or a transvestite man. Because so many transvestite men are so feminine, it is easy for the "chaser," intent on the pursuit of erect male cock attached to beautiful feminine body, to collude, to blur and conflate the two.

None of this would be a problem, but for the harm it causes to transsexual women. While the individuals I have just mentioned are men, and whether submissive or dominant, relate to their penises as men, transsexual women are WOMEN and, in the main, they DO NOT.

This immediately puts the transsexual woman in a difficult position; if she is young and attractive, she will want, if she is straight, to have relationships with men; relationships in which she is a complete woman. Now a great deal is said on boards like this about how it is "not gay" for a man to be penetrated by a penis; well, people can say what they like and I certainly have my own opinions on that, but for a large proportion of transsexual women, being in a relationship in which she is a "complete woman" does NOT include penetrating men. She wants to be wined, dined, taken to the theatre, bought nice presents and made love to in a way that reinforces her sense of gender, not conflicts with it. For these women, the best thing would probably be a fast-track to GRS.

However, depending on the financial circumstances, social abilities, determination and many other factors including the conservatism of many medical practitioners and their professional insurers, and of course, the thoroughly reactionary activities of the quacks who run organisations like the Clarke, it is often very, very difficult for women, who may be really quite confused, to achieve full transition in any sort of reasonable timescale. This means that transsexual women, if they desire to have a romantic life and the affirmation that brings, have to have this during their pre-operative phase, ie, while they are still wearing a cock.

This may, indeed frequently does, throw them in the path of the predatory homosexual male "chaser" whose interest is in finding a penis attached to a person with a feminine body who is prepared to play a male sexual role. Because the man in this circumstance only cares about the woman's femininity insofar as it relates to HIM, ie in supporting his denial of his homosexuality, he is completely uncaring of what it means to her, ie the expression of her gender. In other words, he expects a transsexual woman to be happy to behave in the same way as a homosexual transvestite man; he (wrongly) assumes that a transwoman may be woman on the outside, but inside she is a man like him.

Thus the conflation of CD/TV men and transsexual women impacts women not only in terms of how they are perceived by society, in their access to health care and the prejudice that they have to endure, but in their romantic lives.






As I said in the shaving thread, the most disturbing thing about THAT thread was not that a TV "came on a TS site to talk about his fetish while asking for shaving advice." No, the disturbing thing with that thread was how belligerent and hostile forum members became to the original poster. Their reactions showed that, even on HUNG ANGELS, people had bought into the propaganda that the social conservatives are spewing, and have started to believe that TVs are "sick", perverted, sexually deviant fetishists.



I'm not going to rehearse the debate, but I would just reiterate that my exception was to the way the OP expressed himself in that debate, rather than what he may do for fun. Having said that, the language used by many CD/TV men is frequently very offensive. I have no doubt whatever that part of their kick is the idea of shocking other people by the manipulation of gender signals. (This is not restricted to the situation we are discussing; David Bowie, Boy George, Annie Lennox, Little Richard and many many others have deliberately cross-dressed in order to shock and attract attention.)

However CD/TV men should be aware that in using language that is likely, and IMO calculated, to provoke, they may well succeed in doing just that.





We should all try to remember, that even the chasers here are deemed "sexually deviant" by "mainstream society" and the idiots the APA has put in charge of rewriting the sexuality sections of the DSM for the upcoming DSM5 want to make tranny chasing a mental illness. That's right, the stigmatization that society has inflicted TVs with, that they've been trying to affected TSs with, will soon even be adapted to try to affect guys into tgirls.

They want to call this "condition" Gynandromorphophilia for people into tgirls, and "Andromimetophilia" for people into tguys.

Everyone on this forum is being targeted by these social conservatives..
and all these guys (into tgirls) are next..

The policymakers at the APA aren't even trying to hide this fact.



I've spent most of my life being targeted by social conservatives, and I long ago stopped paying them any heed. But I live in Europe, where as I said, you're allowed to be different.

I've carried out quite a few interviews on this and I don't see any appetite at all, at least in the UK or France, to start considering either transwomen or men attracted to them as mentally ill. In fact UK Govt guidelines specifically state that transsexualism is "not a mental illness."

Having said that, I wonder if the reactionaries in the APA are in the ascendant because of the years of the lamentable Mr Bush, where Bible-thumping conservatism was pushed into so many areas of American life, and I wonder if this is not going to be rolled back, now that someone who is not himself a mental patient is in the White House.








* Of course, there will be some who will want to inflict harm, who want to perpetuate the stereotypes that we're all sexually deviant. Sometimes these belligerent agendas DO come from inside the community. Look at all the gays who have tried to prevent trans acceptance, then there was that TV in Canada back around 2004 who lobbied to END HRT COVERAGE UNDER NHS in Ontario because they "were cured of all their problems by anti-anxiety medication" and therefore felt it the best course of action for treating all trans people, TS included, to save money for the taxpayers.

This is unfortunately true, and in fact two of the most vituperative lobbies against the interests of transsexual women in the UK come from-- you guessed it, militant gay men and feminist lesbians.

I would really like to see where the association of transsexual women with the "T" in LGBT has actually helped transsexual women (as opposed, again, to CD/TV men.) One instance of positive good would be nice to find. As it is, I just think transsexual women should steer clear of it. The whole thing, worthy though it is in itself, just adds to the likelihood that transsexual women will be seen not as women, but as men.

[dbev]

I forgot one thing: many people here are from the USA and, maybe, in many European countries, cultural points of view are different: i.e. Jackson's breast was no big deal here...

[MacShreach]

I forgot one thing: many people here are from the USA and, maybe, in many European countries, cultural points of view are different: i.e. Jackson's breast was no big deal here...

I think it's fair to say that generalisation is a dangerous practise, but I think in the main I would have to agree with that.

I lived for a long time in a village where my next-door neighbours, during the holidays as theirs was a second home, were a quaint menage-a-trois of gay men (who were extremely good company.) Bear in mind this is one seriously rural place where the cattle outnumber the humans at least 100:1. I used to watch as one of them wandered down to the cafe in the mornings to get his fags, dressed, normally, in a pair of fluffy bedroom slippers, a silk kimono and a silk scarf on his head.

No-one, ever, batted an eyelid. Not one. I kid you not. No looks, no whispers, no nothing.

I was pretty impressed.

[SarahG]

At the same time there are many transsexual women, especially those who transition later, who really do not have the advantage of physical femininity.

What this means is that it is completely impossible to tell, looking at someone's picture, whether that person is a transsexual woman or a transvestite man. Because so many transvestite men are so feminine, it is easy for the "chaser," intent on the pursuit of erect male cock attached to beautiful feminine body, to collude, to blur and conflate the two.\

Which is exactly why the TG community includes both TV's and TS's, even though the two situations have absolutely nothing in common.

Until the medical science advanced to where we are today, there was no way to visually tell trans people apart between tv/ts lines, and now that that technology does exist- its so apparent that some TVs use it as well, and some (who are young) don't need it (yet anyway- see the club kids thread). So to an ignorant, uneducated general public where "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, it must be a duck" "a trans is a trans."

At risk of REALLY sending this thread offtopic, I'll go so far as to say I've wondered in the past if the reason for the rifts in the so-called LGBT community, is really due to the history of the two groups. Sure, some people know that both the gay pride symbol and the trans pride symbol come from the third holocaust, but who in the general public knows that the modern srs procedure, as we know it to be anyway- was developed by the Nazis during WW2 as a potential cure for homosexuality? Iran's "there are no gays in Ian" policy of giving gay guys the choice between transitioning or execution is not, by any means, a policy that they had invented. The surgery that so many TS people try so hard to get, was at a time forcefully developed using gay patients as guinea pigs. The hopes, on apart of the Germans, was not just to develop a way to cure gay guys (by making them straight women) but going the next step to make them fertile women (the technology just didn't exist then to go to that step). They probably knew how unreachable the goal was, which explains why it was a method of last resort after they tried aversion therapy/reparative therapy, torture, sterilization, chemically induced illnesses, and forced-use of female prostitutes... a bunch of tactics (minus the prostitutes and forced sterilization anyway) that today come right out of the Clarke Institute's playbook on "how to treat trans patients." I've seen some anthropologists speculate that the reason why homosexuality is seen as a social problem, isn't because of any rules on heteronormative sexual behavior... but due to misplaced hostility that was originally directed at trans people for daring to break gender roles (and therefore risking the balance of gender-power).

To think that the gay community knows all this today is laughable, when the HRC dropped trans inclusion on a federal bill for the 3rd or 4th time what, last year? The gay blogs were buzzing with "who needs those trannies, its not like they do a lot to help our situation"- which is historically incorrect, but perhaps there is a lasting memory of realizing, under the surface, that gender role violations are what caused (at least some of) the homosexuality stigmatization, and that transsexuals have been embraced by ultra conservative groups & individuals ranging from the nazis to Ayatollah Khomenei... meaning without belligerent intent to hold trans people back, it could have been the gays who would have been "left behind" as far as mainstream acceptance went. And the facts of it all? Down the memory hole it goes.



However CD/TV men should be aware that in using language that is likely, and IMO calculated, to provoke, they may well succeed in doing just that.


Of course its calculated, for some. All anyone has to do is be a member of a forum, email list, or any other online group that's had its membership be taken over by TVs and the posts will instantly become a long drivel of sexual commentary designed to get a reaction, only if that reaction occurs its "how dare you!/this is the worst thing anyone has ever said to me!" etc.

I just don't agree that it's out there enough, or graphic enough to pass muster as highly offensive. i mean seriously, look at the stuff that DOES get posted here (1man 1 cup, 1 priest 1 nun, etc).

But, at least HA is somewhat consistent in the forums' likes/don't likes. Just look at the usual reaction when guys start their first post here by showing us their cocks....

[MacShreach]

At risk of REALLY sending this thread offtopic,



Oh, Sarah, you really must know by now that I cannot resist the OT bait...





I'll go so far as to say I've wondered in the past if the reason for the rifts in the so-called LGBT community, is really due to the history of the two groups. Sure, some people know that both the gay pride symbol and the trans pride symbol come from the third holocaust, but who in the general public knows that the modern srs procedure, as we know it to be anyway- was developed by the Nazis during WW2 as a potential cure for homosexuality? Iran's "there are no gays in Ian" policy of giving gay guys the choice between transitioning or execution is not, by any means, a policy that they had invented. The surgery that so many TS people try so hard to get, was at a time forcefully developed using gay patients as guinea pigs. The hopes, on apart of the Germans, was not just to develop a way to cure gay guys (by making them straight women) but going the next step to make them fertile women (the technology just didn't exist then to go to that step). They probably knew how unreachable the goal was, which explains why it was a method of last resort after they tried aversion therapy/reparative therapy, torture, sterilization, chemically induced illnesses, and forced-use of female prostitutes... a bunch of tactics (minus the prostitutes and forced sterilization anyway) that today come right out of the Clarke Institute's playbook on "how to treat trans patients." I've seen some anthropologists speculate that the reason why homosexuality is seen as a social problem, isn't because of any rules on heteronormative sexual behavior... but due to misplaced hostility that was originally directed at trans people for daring to break gender roles (and therefore risking the balance of gender-power).



We have to remember that the gay male world as we know it now is a relatively recent phenomenon; that is not to say that men did not enjoy sex with other men before, but that what some call the "egalitarian" gay model is recent. This is different because it openly focusses on men being attracted to male attractors-- fit, manly bodies, masculine features, classically aggressive male posturing and so on. Until the 20th century this just did not happen-- in male/male relationships, one took the role of the woman and the other of the man. This has become in some ways unfashionable since for modern gay men, it is axiomatic that they should be no less masculine. If we look at the "Molly Houses" of 18th C England and the equivalents on the continent, or at the "Street-boy" scene in Renaissance Florence, we see this illustrated-- masculine men lusted after highly effeminate boys and men. We can take this analogy back as far as the Greeks.

That suggests two things: the first is that your observation may be correct, in that the reaction to homosexuality was actually a reaction to the gender inversion which accompanied it. Some evidence for this is that anal sex between men and receiving women was commonplace in Renaissance Florence and seems not to have been persecuted, while men who received anal sex were; one possible reason is that the gender role of the women was not affected by this sexual behaviour, while that of receiving gay men was.

In other cultures however, the offence does seem to have been (and remains, vis. Iran) the act of anal sex itself, so we have to be careful how we use this analogy. Nevertheless I think it's a useful line of inquiry. I don't know whether anal sex between a man and a woman is regarded as badly as that between two men in Iran or other modern Muslim cultures. (not to self: find out.)


This also suggests that some of the hostility displayed by some gay men towards trans women may be rooted in jealousy; they may think it's almost cheating, an unfair advantage, especially if they happen to be submissive and attracted to very masculine men.

[SarahG]

Oh, Sarah, you really must know by now that I cannot resist the OT bait...


How do you know that wasn't the intention? :P



We have to remember that the gay male world as we know it now is a relatively recent phenomenon; that is not to say that men did not enjoy sex with other men before, but that what some call the "egalitarian" gay model is recent. This is different because it openly focusses on men being attracted to male attractors-- fit, manly bodies, masculine features, classically aggressive male posturing and so on. Until the 20th century this just did not happen-- in male/male relationships, one took the role of the woman and the other of the man. This has become in some ways unfashionable since for modern gay men, it is axiomatic that they should be no less masculine. If we look at the "Molly Houses" of 18th C England and the equivalents on the continent, or at the "Street-boy" scene in Renaissance Florence, we see this illustrated-- masculine men lusted after highly effeminate boys and men. We can take this analogy back as far as the Greeks.

Exactly, and since the medical science that is employed today in transitioning did NOT exist then, nor did it until the technology exist until after it was developed using gay guy detainees- people were only passable if they happened to get an orchi before losing that passability from testosterone... and even then would never develop the female secondary sex characteristics (aka breasts, curves, etc) needed for true stealth/assimilation.

...Which brings us back to "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, its a duck"

Not only did this create the illusion that "a trans is a trans" but that "a tv, ts, and gay guy are one in the same." And since to the men in power this LOOKED like gender role variation (instead of mimicking heteronormative power distribution & roles), it became a cardinal sin.

And so it is fully explained why there is a L/G/B/TV/TS "community" even though the gays, TVs, and TS's have nothing in common with their situations.



Some evidence for this is that anal sex between men and receiving women was commonplace in Renaissance Florence and seems not to have been persecuted, while men who received anal sex were; one possible reason is that the gender role of the women was not affected by this sexual behaviour, while that of receiving gay men was.

In other cultures however, the offence does seem to have been (and remains, vis. Iran) the act of anal sex itself, so we have to be careful how we use this analogy. Nevertheless I think it's a useful line of inquiry. I don't know whether anal sex between a man and a woman is regarded as badly as that between two men in Iran or other modern Muslim cultures. (not to self: find out.)

I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very issue yesterday. He pointed out to me that the reason why there is so much at steak when dealing with defining heteronormative sexual behavior isn't so much because "some guys may want to put on hose to jerk off" but because its a defensive mechanism for the "men in control."

The reason why the idiots put in charge of the sexuality section of the DSM5 want to put so much stock in making anything other than heteronormative vaginal intercourse a mental illness (http://www.feministing.com/archives/015254.html) (which is what they plan to do if you've been following what little information we know about these guys' preliminary thoughts/writings) is for this reason.

What the feminists don't devote any attention to (for the most part anyway), my friend related, was the abuse of gender-power in abusing minorities, but beyond that- men. This is where the "its only gay if you don't beat him afterwords" comes from- men are systematically throughout history, sexually raped, assaulted, etc then murdered or outcast when they fail to fit sex-stereotypes much in the way women who violate those norms are.

So in stressing the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse... but more specifically, the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse yielding reproduction- men cannot be as easily targeted the way women are. Thus, the balance of societal power is not put at risk...

Political institutions (churches, governments, etc.) have a concern here is for similar reasons. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th estates will enact rules relating to sexual activity that is not related to the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse because in so doing it establishes & perpetuates that the purpose of these individuals, their power, their bodies, and their sexuality is to serve "a higher power" (be it god, king or country). Thus power is preserved, reproduction is stressed to supply more people to perpetuate the process and repeat.

[SarahG]

I forgot to add, the reason why people in power are not often subject to these heteronormative regulations is because they are the ones most solidly positioned in gender-based power distribution.

All one needs to do is look at Wilhelmine Germany. The historical record is overflowing with accounts of the Kaiser's homosexual exploits. A significant portion of the Kaiser's entourage not only engaged in homosexual exploits, but pedophilic ones.This was not much different all throughout the powerful families of Germany, and usually this never lead to scandals. The exception was Alfried Krupp who caused some raised eyes when it got out that he was regularly traveling to a resort in Italy to rape little boys- but in that case it was only an issue because Krupp was foolish in how he did it, and allowed the story to spill over into mixed society.

In Arms of Krupp, Manchester presents an example of this involving the Kaiser, and wrote:

"General Count Dietrich von Hulsen-Haeseler, the chief of the Reich's military cabinet, appeared in front of the Kaiser dressed in a pink ballet skirt and rose wreath. The general's ramrod back dipped low in a swanlike bow; then he whirled away in a graceful dance as the assembled officer corps sighed passionately in admiration. Hulsen-Haeseler circled the floor, returned to the imperial presence for his farewell bow, and then, to Wilhelm's horror, dropped dead of a heart attack. Rigor mortis had set in before his brother officers realized that it would be improper to bury him in the skirt. They had a terrible time stuffing the stiff corpse into a dress uniform. Still, everyone had to agree that he had 'danced beautifully.'" (Manchester 230).

The people with all the power always like proving their power by doing what the commoners cannot- a forbidden fruit syndrome that explains everything from high class rapes to pedophile priests. Given the power dynamics on the micro-level within families, the instances of spousal rapes or the rapes of ones children can be similarly explained. To give a non-sexual example, I believe it was Orwell who pointed this out in bringing up the Stechschritt (Goose-step)... a march that was designed to be as comical and entertaining is possible with the knowledge in mind that no one, regardless how absurd it looked, would dare laugh at it.

To be fair, the Germans were hardly unique... there is quite a lot of documentation out there talking about the rapes & orgies that American naval officers would take part in when at ports abroad, and it was one of those exploits gone wrong that triggered the Zimmerman telegraph.

[MacShreach]

Oh, Sarah, you really must know by now that I cannot resist the OT bait...


How do you know that wasn't the intention? :P



Oh, I had considered that. :D




Exactly, and since the medical science that is employed today in transitioning did NOT exist then, nor did it until the technology exist until after it was developed using gay guy detainees- people were only passable if they happened to get an orchi before losing that passability from testosterone... and even then would never develop the female secondary sex characteristics (aka breasts, curves, etc) needed for true stealth/assimilation.

...Which brings us back to "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, its a duck"

Not only did this create the illusion that "a trans is a trans" but that "a tv, ts, and gay guy are one in the same." And since to the men in power this LOOKED like gender role variation (instead of mimicking heteronormative power distribution & roles), it became a cardinal sin.

And so it is fully explained why there is a L/G/B/TV/TS "community" even though the gays, TVs, and TS's have nothing in common with their situations.



I agree with all of that but I think there are two other factors to take into account. Firstly, transsexualism was only recently identified, and as we have discussed elsewhere, the relative numbers of transsexual women compared to the various manifestations of CD/TV men, is at highest, of the order of 1:100 or thereabouts. Secondly there has been great hostility by natal women feminists against transgender women.

Taken together these really mean that TS women have very little voice; the right people to support them, women's organisations, shun them because they hold antediluvian attitudes and consider either that anyone born with a penis to be male for life, or conflate CD/TV men with TS women and insist that a woman's organisation is the wrong place for a man. In this last they are right, but of course TS women are women, not men, so once again, inappropriate terminology is to the detriment of transwomen.

On the other hand, they LGBT movement has worked very hard and been very successful over the last four decades, TS women may derive some spin-off benefit from their activities, even though they are not really gay or even transgendered in any real sense.

There's nothing trans about a transsexual woman's gender; she's a woman. The trans bit is all physical. This is one of those key split points that is so frequently obscured: CD/TV men play with, modify or transform their gender and their gender roles and presentations to a greater or lesser extent for a very wide variety of reasons, but transsexual women are women who have to modify their bodies' physical sex to bring it into conformity with their gender. In a sense the transsexual woman is a much simpler phenomenon to deal with and certainly to treat, which is why, outside the nuthouse the APA apparently lives in, medical authorities all over the world have a pretty simple treatment programme for transsexual women--diagnose, treat with hormones and surgery, send on way happy.

There is an important psychiatric element to the evaluation of patients in the UK and elsewhere but it is important to realise that in part at least this is there to screen out men who are actually CD/TV with delusions. This is very onerous for genuinely transsexual women, especially young ones who are keen to transition before their bodes masculinise, but it is hard for the medical community to do anything else, since there have already been cases where TV men, after surgery, later claimed that the surgery was inappropriate. Such activity, by men who are, in my opinion, little better than self-serving attention-seekers, has hit transsexual women hard by making it more difficult to do something that is difficult enough already.







I was actually talking to a friend of mine about this very issue yesterday. He pointed out to me that the reason why there is so much at steak when dealing with defining heteronormative sexual behavior isn't so much because "some guys may want to put on hose to jerk off" but because its a defensive mechanism for the "men in control."

The reason why the idiots put in charge of the sexuality section of the DSM5 want to put so much stock in making anything other than heteronormative vaginal intercourse a mental illness (http://www.feministing.com/archives/015254.html) (which is what they plan to do if you've been following what little information we know about these guys' preliminary thoughts/writings) is for this reason.

What the feminists don't devote any attention to (for the most part anyway), my friend related, was the abuse of gender-power in abusing minorities, but beyond that- men. This is where the "its only gay if you don't beat him afterwords" comes from- men are systematically throughout history, sexually raped, assaulted, etc then murdered or outcast when they fail to fit sex-stereotypes much in the way women who violate those norms are.

So in stressing the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse... but more specifically, the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse yielding reproduction- men cannot be as easily targeted the way women are. Thus, the balance of societal power is not put at risk...

Political institutions (churches, governments, etc.) have a concern here is for similar reasons. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th estates will enact rules relating to sexual activity that is not related to the centrality of heteronormative vaginal intercourse because in so doing it establishes & perpetuates that the purpose of these individuals, their power, their bodies, and their sexuality is to serve "a higher power" (be it god, king or country). Thus power is preserved, reproduction is stressed to supply more people to perpetuate the process and repeat.

I think that the very existence of transsexual women (and men) absolutely tears up the rule-book. Whole empires of thought and philosophy generated over centuries about gender, sexuality and gender behaviour is questioned fundamentally by the simple, observable fact that there are women who are born with XY chromosomes and male genitalia, and men who are born with XX chromosomes and female genitalia. This is a bit like taking a person who believes the earth is flat to the shore, letting him watch a ship sail off into the distance, and then asking him to explain why it slowly disappears downwards as if it were sinking.

A huge amount of thinking has gone into the understanding of gender and sexuality and most of it predicates behaviour and gender on physical birth sex. Thus men who are submissive and attracted to other men are homosexual; and women who are dominant and attracted to other women are lesbian (I know there are other categories.) Whole philosophies, support networks, political organisations have been built, based on these fundamental assumptions, which can themselves be reduced to: "Gender and sexuality can be explained in terms of birth physical sex."

But then along comes the transsexual woman. She may be attracted to men. But she's not a homosexual man, she's a woman--with a penis (past or present) or maybe she's a lesbian....but she's not a straight man....because she's not a man at all...You can just hear the melt-down.

I have only occasionally come across something that challenged a whole world of established thinking and behaviour in such a satisfyingly complete manner. It's a bit like the discovery of Roman and Greek artefacts that led to the Renaissance, or Darwin's exquisite understanding of the natural world, which within a very few years, had torn down centuries--millennia--of religious mumbo-jumbo.

That is why people are continually trying to put the transsexual genie back into the bottle. That is why they demean transsexual women, miscategorise them, misdescribe them, refuse to accept the reality of them. That is what is behind Blanchard's deliberately skewed work and false theorising, and Bailey's and all the others. It is why radical feminists rail against transsexual women, call them terrible names, spit and hiss and curse their fury. All because the moment they accept, prima facie, that such a thing-- a real, flesh and blood woman, who was born with XY chromosomes and a willy, can possibly exist, then the whole house of cards that their thinking is based on, falls down in a heap around them.

These people are the same ones who would shrug, look to where the ship once was, and say, "It sank." Their worlds simply cannot encompass this fact. But then consider our flat-earther, if the ship turned round and rose back into view....what would he think?. Perhaps he is looking at a submarine. Perhaps it is magick--devilry; perhaps an optical illusion. All because to accept that actually the world is an oblate spheroid and not flat at all, would destroy everything he had ever thought true. It would be a catharsis. This is what these theorists are doing--clutching at straws that might stop the ground slipping from under their feet. The truth does not interest them; only the rational construct of their thought does, and they do not care if they damage others to protect that.

But catharsis is good for the soul.

[SarahG]

I think that the very existence of transsexual women (and men) absolutely tears up the rule-book. Whole empires of thought and philosophy generated over centuries about gender, sexuality and gender behaviour is questioned fundamentally by the simple, observable fact that there are women who are born with XY chromosomes and male genitalia, and men who are born with XX chromosomes and female genitalia. This is a bit like taking a person who believes the earth is flat to the shore, letting him watch a ship sail off into the distance, and then asking him to explain why it slowly disappears downwards as if it were sinking.

A huge amount of thinking has gone into the understanding of gender and sexuality and most of it predicates behaviour and gender on physical birth sex. Thus men who are submissive and attracted to other men are homosexual; and women who are dominant and attracted to other women are lesbian (I know there are other categories.) Whole philosophies, support networks, political organisations have been built, based on these fundamental assumptions, which can themselves be reduced to: "Gender and sexuality can be explained in terms of birth physical sex."

But then along comes the transsexual woman. She may be attracted to men. But she's not a homosexual man, she's a woman--with a penis (past or present) or maybe she's a lesbian....but she's not a straight man....because she's not a man at all...You can just hear the melt-down.

I have only occasionally come across something that challenged a whole world of established thinking and behaviour in such a satisfyingly complete manner. It's a bit like the discovery of Roman and Greek artefacts that led to the Renaissance, or Darwin's exquisite understanding of the natural world, which within a very few years, had torn down centuries--millennia--of religious mumbo-jumbo.

That is why people are continually trying to put the transsexual genie back into the bottle. That is why they demean transsexual women, miscategorise them, misdescribe them, refuse to accept the reality of them. That is what is behind Blanchard's deliberately skewed work and false theorising, and Bailey's and all the others. It is why radical feminists rail against transsexual women, call them terrible names, spit and hiss and curse their fury. All because the moment they accept, prima facie, that such a thing-- a real, flesh and blood woman, who was born with XY chromosomes and a willy, can possibly exist, then the whole house of cards that their thinking is based on, falls down in a heap around them.

These people are the same ones who would shrug, look to where the ship once was, and say, "It sank." Their worlds simply cannot encompass this fact. But then consider our flat-earther, if the ship turned round and rose back into view....what would he think?. Perhaps he is looking at a submarine. Perhaps it is magick--devilry; perhaps an optical illusion. All because to accept that actually the world is an oblate spheroid and not flat at all, would destroy everything he had ever thought true. It would be a catharsis. This is what these theorists are doing--clutching at straws that might stop the ground slipping from under their feet. The truth does not interest them; only the rational construct of their thought does, and they do not care if they damage others to protect that.

But catharsis is good for the soul.

Sure, trans issues have the potential to rock someone's world, by causing people to think trans issues are violating all the rules so to speak.

But it doesn't have to be taken that way. Transsexualism actually reinforces these rules/trends/boundaries (whatever we want to call them), as otherwise ts people wouldn't give a shit about passing, blending, assimilation, their physical deviations from other people of the same gender (aka gender dysphoria), or (for mtfs) being seen as a normal woman.

If gender was some meaningless socially constructed label of no biological component, then what would be the point of transitioning? The reason why 2nd wave feminists were so pissed off at the existence of trans people (in ways that weren't seen with 1st wave feminists) was because it threw a monkey wrench in the whole "gender doesn't exist, it's just a stupid label" theory that they were preaching. They simply couldn't deal with the idea that someone could have a gender that didn't match their birth sex, thus promptly took offense.

The reason why so many ultra conservative regimes have endorsed trans people, through subsidizing medical costs, marriage rights, and legal acceptance is because they saw it as proof that their doctrines (that gender IS a real biological status, not a meaningless social label) were correct in arguing that there are differences between men & women. Science routinely supports that there are tangible trends along gender lines, the fallacy (for both 2nd wave feminists and ultra conservative reactionaries) was in arguing that this meant one was more superior than the other.

I.e. if I give two people a puzzle and tell them to finish it, as long as they both complete the task does it or should it matter what brain structures they use to do it? But instead of making such a seemingly SIMPLE argument that these differences exist but do NOT prove superiority/inferiority, the 2nd wave feminists buried their heads in the sand and insisted that there is no difference whatsoever, in any way, between sexes and therefore... gender is a modern day fairytale.

If anything, the furthest someone can go when using transsexualism to shake the foundations of ideology, is in showing that chromosomes does not predetermine genitalia or gender, which is something that has also been independently shown by various intersex conditions (that is, assuming transsexualism is not also a variant of intersex).

[yodajazz]

The mental health establishment has a narrative for the life identities for transsexuals. Some trans people will agree and say that it is exactly how they felt from the beginning. But the problem I see with it, is that identity is a growth process formed over time. For most people, it still grows through their entire lives. This should be a human right.

In the case of trans people, many go through phases of identifying as gay, before they come to understand themselves more fully. Others explore crossdressing. For some that is the end in itself but for others it is just part of a path to the identity of a transsexual. So I take the position that there are not completely distinct categories of people but variations along a continuum. Sure there is such a thing as a trans person, but who is to say who is not, if that person identifies themselves as one.

The transsexual narrative says that the tran person had always felt different. This is true, but what this ignores, is that this is true for the entire human race. Every single person feels different, because they are. Each person is unique. Most people decide to modify their uniqueness by merging their self definition, with the definition a larger group of people. And just as true is that fact that some of those same people will come to leave that group, to realize a greater part of themselves.

I just recently, in my internet travels, I ran across the early photo session of one of today’s hottest post op women. She did not look that hot back then, but there was a thing inside her that wanted to develop a purer feminine beauty. But no telling what people here would have said, had she posted some of those pictures at the time of her early session. Just because you are an HA member, it does not give you the right to deny others their basic human right to self identify. As you give, so shall you receive.

[SarahG]

In the case of trans people, many go through phases of identifying as gay, before they come to understand themselves more fully. Others explore crossdressing..... .

The problem with that point is that "CDing" is just a slang term. I can't tell, from the way you used it, if you're using it as an alternative term for TV. If you are, then I disagree because that would imply that for a period, the individual "put on clothes of the opposite sex to masturbate," and identified fully with that fetish.

Is it possible to "be both"? Absolutely. I have known FtM TS people who were, in addition to being TS, MtF TV's. But one did not lead to the other...

But, if you mean CDing as an act rather than a label (the act of wearing clothes of the opposite sex- no fetish necessarily involved) then I agree. It isn't that uncommon for people to think they're "just a femme gay guy" or "a club kid" or "a [nonfetishist] crossdresser" for a while. To say nothing of the people who, in denial, try to force themselves into something they're not (i.e. getting married, having kids, then waking up one day at 50 and screaming "I NEED TO GO FULLTIME ON MONDAY!" ).

The important part to that being that they realize, throughout that time that they just don't feel like everyone else in those groups. Not because of any social dynamics like whether or not they "fit in" but because, as you said it:


The transsexual narrative says that the tran person had always felt different.

Unlike all the ways everyone else "in the entire human race feels different or unique," the reason why a ts person finds they're NOT a "femme gay guy", "crossdresser," "club kid," or anything else along those lines- is because of (to use the clinical term) gender dysphoria, which is unique to the trans experience.


I just recently, in my internet travels, I ran across the early photo session of one of today’s hottest post op women. She did not look that hot back then, but there was a thing inside her that wanted to develop a purer feminine beauty.

Wanted or needed? Well, that's another topic. Otherwise I agree here as well, which is why it's so important for people to realize you can't tell a TV apart from a TS using appearances. It wouldn't be hard to find TVs who pass well, and TS people who never will.

As to jumping on people for their appearance, I have to wonder if SB would have posted at all had the OP just been honest and said "you know, I am here because idk what i am, I need to find my way-etc"