Who Is The TV, the TS, and the ??

[GroobyKrissy]

OK, for those of you who missed the fine reading in the other thread, and for anyone else:

Here are some pictures.

Please determine for me, if being TS was THE ONLY (that is... looks were not the issue) qualification for being on a TS porn site, who would belong on it?

You can number sequentially from left to right, top to bottom.

For those who say you can differentiate a non-TS person from a TS person... this should be interesting to see how you categorize these individuals, which are all (or are they?) a mixture of women, men, TS, TV and a few ?? thrown in. Some you might know and thus be easy.

No fair running to Google and searching through pictures... since you should be able to distinguish based upon looks alone. You're on your honor for this.

Have at it. I theorize that most, especially those to whom this is directed, will refuse to answer citing some excuse. Let's see.

To the moderators... these were all non-watermarked images that I manipulated only to make the sizes all similar. They were freely posted online at various public sites.

[GroobyKrissy]

If anyone classifies all these individuals 100% correctly outright, and provides their reasons by each decision, with no running to Google (again, on your honor), I will IMMEDIATELY Paypal you $100.00 or send you a check for that amount (first one to get 100% correct). There are only two valid responses: BELONGS or DOESN'T BELONG which means you are saying "TS" or "NOT TS".

This offer expires midnight on New Year's Eve.

[robertlouis]

Might be a cop-out, Krissy, but it appears to me at least that every person pictured sees themselves as female, and isn't that what's important at the end of the day? What does it matter how the rest of the world chooses to label them? It's what's inside that counts.

[GroobyKrissy]

Might be a cop-out, Krissy, but it appears to me at least that every person pictured sees themselves as female, and isn't that what's important at the end of the day? What does it matter how the rest of the world chooses to label them? It's what's inside that counts.

I cannot answer that as it would give clues to the people pictured, but I will say that your premise is incorrect. I will say this: If you say 100% everyone belongs or 100% everyone doesn't... you will be wrong.

This is a specific point that I'm making. You cannot accurately judge TS status based upon looks alone. Those who say they can, with even a remote bit of accuracy, are full of BS. All other arguments / points about the TV vs TS topic must start from that truth.

If you can, accurately make that distinction, then this should be an easy $100.00 for you.

I don't believe you can. And I believe that if you do make that distinction based upon looks, then you really have no credibility seriously discussing TS related matters or having any input into the community.

In hindsight, I revoke the Paypal and check. I will send you, in the mail, a crisp $100.00 bill or a blank money order to the address of your choosing. Paypal contains information about me personally, which I just don't trust some people with. Same with the check.

[GroobySteven]

Ok.
If these photos were sent to me by a photographer of a prospective model - and I get about 30-50 applicants a week, then this would be MY answers. Please note, when I say "unattractive" I'm basing that purely on sellability as a model on an adult website.
Starting at top left and going in rows.

1. Doesn't belong - not passable or attractive.
2. Doesn't belong although image too small to judges right. Boy.
3. Does belong - good look.
4. Doesn't belong - too draggy.
5. Doesn't belong - too draggy
6. Possible female - if trans then belongs.
7. Doesn't belong - unattractive (poss. female)
8. Doesn't belong - unattractive
9. Doesn't belong - unattractive
10. Does belong - good look
11. Does belong - good look.
12. Doesn't belong - unattractive (female?)
13. Doesn't belong - unattractive
14. Doesn't belong - unattractive
15. Does belong - good look.
16. Doesn't belong - although would need to see with makeup and hair done.
17. Doesn't belong - although would see with better hair.
18. Does belong
19. Doesn't belong - unattractive.
20. Would have to see further photos.
21. Doesn't belong - male or identifies with.
22. Woman?
23. Does belong
24. Doesn't belong - too draggy
25. Does belong
26. Does belong
27. Doesn't belong - unattractive
28. Doesn't belong - unattractive
29. Probably does belong
30. Would need to see close up.

[alpha2117]

Interesting mix of pics. I can see a few famous faces in there both TS and not. Androgynous pop-stars from Germany & Sweden (via Japan), male models who regularly model womenswear, famous TS's later in life etc. Doubt the people who are all hung up on labeling people will actually know who from who.

Sean's list is confusing because 2 are missing and somewhere along the line the answers seem to lose it (probably because of accidently skipping 2 of the 30)

[GroobySteven]

Sean's list is confusing because 2 are missing and somewhere along the line the answers seem to lose it (probably because of accidently skipping 2 of the 30)


Ooops - fixed I think.

[nysprod]

OK, for those of you who missed the fine reading in the other thread, and for anyone else:

Here are some pictures. Please determine for me, if being TS was THE ONLY (that is... looks were not the issue) qualification for being on a TS porn site, who would belong on it?

It's not about a guessing game of who is and who isn't. It's about the people who are interested in TS women being presented with a real TS woman as opposed to a TV, which is generally understood to be a man with a fetish for dressing up as a woman.

I'm sure there are times when we can't tell the difference from photos, but I'm not sure what that proves.

"The ONE basic point that I have made, that everything flows through is simple: You cannot judge a person's TS status based upon looks alone. If you do so, you have no right at all discussing matters related to the subject with any seriousness. END BASIC POINT."

I don't disagree, which is why those of us interested in real TS women depend on producers to present real TS women.

[loveboof]

It's not about a guessing game of who is and who isn't. It's about the people who are interested in TS women being presented with a real TS woman as opposed to a TV, which is generally understood to be a man with a fetish for dressing up as a woman.

I'm sure there are times when we can't tell the difference from photos, but I'm not sure what that proves.

Ahh well done mate! It seems that someone actually does understand the issue...

Thank God for that :)

[Ecstatic]

Please determine for me, if being TS was THE ONLY (that is... looks were not the issue) qualification for being on a TS porn site, who would belong on it?

Presented with 2.5 dozen photos, I can only guess who is TS, TV, F, etc. (and I know I would be wrong maybe 50% of the time). But the premise that being TS is the only qualification for being on a TS porn site is flawed, as quite obviously (as Seanchai points out), many of these, IF TS, would not qualify based on looks: site models have to be attractive (or, since one could argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we would have to split the qualifiers into different camps targeting different audiences).

Seanchai based his response of belongs or doesn't belong on a combination of attractiveness (which was excluded by the premise) and gender state, which is actually how a producer would make that choice. Of course, there will be overlap between what one producer finds attractive and what another finds unattractive, but why would any producer would feature TS purely on the basis of being TS?

[Willie Escalade]

I honestly couldn't tell by most of these pictures; I'd have to meet all of them in person. I recognize about four of the individuals, I see that singer from Tokyo Hotel, as well as a local drag queen. Other than that, I'm drawing a blank..,

[Stavros]

OK, for those of you who missed the fine reading in the other thread, and for anyone else:

Here are some pictures.

Please determine for me, if being TS was THE ONLY (that is... looks were not the issue) qualification for being on a TS porn site, who would belong on it?

You can number sequentially from left to right, top to bottom.

For those who say you can differentiate a non-TS person from a TS person... this should be interesting to see how you categorize these individuals, which are all (or are they?) a mixture of women, men, TS, TV and a few ?? thrown in. Some you might know and thus be easy.

No fair running to Google and searching through pictures... since you should be able to distinguish based upon looks alone. You're on your honor for this.

Have at it. I theorize that most, especially those to whom this is directed, will refuse to answer citing some excuse. Let's see.

To the moderators... these were all non-watermarked images that I manipulated only to make the sizes all similar. They were freely posted online at various public sites.

I have not checked on Google -I recognise Jan Morris, April Ashey, LiaT and the other model Andreij something or other.

My estimation is as follows:

Frist Row, L-R
TS-Female-TV-TV-TS-TS

Second Row L-R
TS-TV- TS (Jan Morris)- TS (April Ashley)- TS- TS

Third Row L-R
TS-TS-TS-TS-TS-TV

Fourth Row L-R
TS-TV-TV-TS-TV-TS-Ts

Fifth Row L-R
TS (Computerised image) -Female-TS-TV-TV

The only ones that I can see who might have done porn are the two on the end of the first row.

[GroobyKrissy]

It's not about a guessing game of who is and who isn't. It's about the people who are interested in TS women being presented with a real TS woman as opposed to a TV, which is generally understood to be a man with a fetish for dressing up as a woman.

I'm sure there are times when we can't tell the difference from photos, but I'm not sure what that proves.

"The ONE basic point that I have made, that everything flows through is simple: You cannot judge a person's TS status based upon looks alone. If you do so, you have no right at all discussing matters related to the subject with any seriousness. END BASIC POINT."

I don't disagree, which is why those of us interested in real TS women depend on producers to present real TS women.

Rather than go into it here, please read my LAST post in the other X-critic said. I ate Wheaties this morning so my brain was working. That is as clearly as I can state why it matters.

[GroobyKrissy]

Presented with 2.5 dozen photos, I can only guess who is TS, TV, F, etc. (and I know I would be wrong maybe 50% of the time). But the premise that being TS is the only qualification for being on a TS porn site is flawed, as quite obviously (as Seanchai points out), many of these, IF TS, would not qualify based on looks: site models have to be attractive (or, since one could argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we would have to split the qualifiers into different camps targeting different audiences).

Seanchai based his response of belongs or doesn't belong on a combination of attractiveness (which was excluded by the premise) and gender state, which is actually how a producer would make that choice. Of course, there will be overlap between what one producer finds attractive and what another finds unattractive, but why would any producer would feature TS purely on the basis of being TS?

The premise here is just for the purposes of this exercise. Not what I really believe.

[GroobyKrissy]

OK... since now people are not following the directions (TWO VALID RESPONSES: BELONGS ... DOESN'T BELONG)

and naming names, I revoke the $100.00 offer entirely. Sorry folks, but not fair to me since the more names that are actually mentioned the more you can actually just guess. Even at that though, based on current responses, I would give very minute chances of anyone getting 100%...

Anyway, so far the answers have been pretty interesting. Anyway, I'll post the answers on the 2nd of January so you all can see how you did.

As expected, those who have said they can distinguish (accurately or semi-accurately) have not decided to participate as of yet.

[GroobyKrissy]

I have not checked on Google -I recognise Jan Morris, April Ashey, LiaT and the other model Andreij something or other.

My estimation is as follows:

Frist Row, L-R
TS-Female-TV-TV-TS-TS

Second Row L-R
TS-TV- TS (Jan Morris)- TS (April Ashley)- TS- TS

Third Row L-R
TS-TS-TS-TS-TS-TV

Fourth Row L-R
TS-TV-TV-TS-TV-TS-Ts

Fifth Row L-R
TS (Computerised image) -Female-TS-TV-TV

The only ones that I can see who might have done porn are the two on the end of the first row.

I would be very interested in a short reason why (like Seanchai did) if you were willing?

Thanks.

[GroobyKrissy]

It's not about a guessing game of who is and who isn't. It's about the people who are interested in TS women being presented with a real TS woman as opposed to a TV, which is generally understood to be a man with a fetish for dressing up as a woman.

I'm sure there are times when we can't tell the difference from photos, but I'm not sure what that proves.

"The ONE basic point that I have made, that everything flows through is simple: You cannot judge a person's TS status based upon looks alone. If you do so, you have no right at all discussing matters related to the subject with any seriousness. END BASIC POINT."

I don't disagree, which is why those of us interested in real TS women depend on producers to present real TS women.

Since the other thread is probably going to be locked or whatever, I'll post this here for you. Points 3 and 4... more 4.

1. The owner has the right to feature whoever, whatever, and however he wants. I think you've already stated that is correct.

2. The owner is not forcing a purchase. The consumer is making A CHOICE to purchase a product (inclusive of what is on the aforementioned tour). Sites are graphical and have tours. SMY (I use this site because it has been pretty much beaten up here as the example) happens to have one of the largest around which gives you a VERY SOLID, THOROUGH glimpse as to what you'll see there. Because the consumer has made a choice based upon an educated view of the site, subsequent expressions of dislike become less meaningful. Consumers vote with their dollars.

3. It is a proven fact that the very definitions of TV and TS are open for discussion (as you put it, gray area). Thus, it is irrelevant as to what the OWNER DEFINES as TV or TS since the multitude of CONSUMERS will, in fact, have their own definitions of the terms that either will or won't agree with the owner's. That is the reason why a particular consumer (Franklin in this case), when making a distinct argument about "TVs do not belong on TS sites" MUST state a definition of the two terms. Otherwise the ENTIRE discussion is based upon speculation and individual interpretations.

4. Once it has been established that the person judges TS status based upon looks alone (there is no other way to do so from pictures and a videos), then that person loses credibility to actually state what TS is, therefore the whole argument about who is TS and who is TV, is also invalid. Therefore the argument that TVs should not be featured on TS sites is also invalid, regardless of the owner's admission.

I really cannot state it any clearer than that. I am open to friendly discussion as to where / why I am wrong.

[nysprod]

I am stating that the owner's admission that he features TVs, TS, donkeys, or whatever else is not relevant at all for the following reasons:

1. The owner has the right to feature whoever, whatever, and however he wants. I think you've already stated that is correct.

Yes but if they try to pass TV's and TS, people won't like it

2. The owner is not forcing a purchase. The consumer is making A CHOICE to purchase a product (inclusive of what is on the aforementioned tour)

Yes, but how can a consumer make the right choice when information is being mis-represented?

3. It is a proven fact that the very definitions of TV and TS are open for discussion (as you put it, gray area). That is the reason why a particular consumer (Franklin in this case), when making a distinct argument about "TVs do not belong on TS sites" MUST state a definition of the two terms. Otherwise the ENTIRE discussion is based upon speculation and individual interpretations.

Wrong-A TV is a man with a fetish for dressing in women's clothes. A real TS is not. A real TS identifies herself as a woman and is perceived as such. Distinctive argument made.

4. Once it has been established that the person judges TS status based upon looks alone (there is no other way to do so from pictures and a videos), then that person loses credibility to actually state what TS is, therefore the whole argument about who is TS and who is TV, is also invalid. Therefore the argument that TVs should not be featured on TS sites is also invalid, regardless of the owner's admission.

First, a TV has no TS status. An analogy is me dressing in a NY Giant football uniform and claiming I have status as a professional football player just because I'm dressed like one. Second, I've stated what a TV vs. a TS is...it's not judged by looks alone and it's possible I will be fooled into thinking a TV model is TS.

So, I can fool you into thinking I'm a pro football player because it's impossible for you to make the distinction on appearance alone...but that doesn't make it right for me to have a site dedicated to pro football players, have pics of people who aren't pros dressed as them, but claim that they are.

I really cannot state it any clearer than that. I am open to friendly discussion as to where / why I am wrong.

Your whole argument boils down to "since there isn't a consensus on the difference between TV and TS and you can't tell the difference from pics, I can have TV's on my TS site."

I guess.

[Stavros]

I would be very interested in a short reason why (like Seanchai did) if you were willing?

Thanks.

Ok so in other words, only two would merit Belong and those are the two at the end of Row 1.
The reason is simple enough, they probably look good with their clothes off, and both also look like they can get hard. This reveals that my preference is for fully functional ts rather than tv's.

Porn is not directly related to democracy or equality as far as I can tell, everyone is not welcome, just as you would not want me in any of your films or photo-shoots, and that is not false modesty. Or maybe it also reveals how old-fashioned I am as I would not be interested in seeing the cast of Tod Browning's film Freaks in an orgy, allowing licence for the title of the film. Even tattoos are a turn off. This also suggests that there may be posters who would like to see Jan Morris or April Ashley in a porn shoot, on the other hand I am aware that there is a large audience for tv's on this board. Perhaps your survey is doomed for these reasons.

[amberskyi]

How does someone look like they can get hard lol

[GroobyKrissy]

Your whole argument boils down to "since there isn't a consensus on the difference between TV and TS and you can't tell the difference from pics, I can have TV's on my TS site."

No, that is not my point at all.

And if that is what you think, then you are missing the entire point. I have, (rightfully so) been said to be condescending. I will state emphatically that I am not trying to be so here but I must take this point-by-point.

You said (bold mine):

A TV is a man with a fetish for dressing in women's clothes. A real TS is not. A real TS identifies herself as a woman and is perceived as such. Distinctive argument made.In stating this, which I [somewhat] agree with, you have defined your terms. That is great, and what should be done if anyone wants to have a serious discussion about the topic. Other people are not so forthright with their definitions.

You then say:

First a TV has no TS status.And then go on to present an analogy (addressed later). So, the question, based upon your definitions and your subsequent statement is HOW do YOU (the consumer) make that distinction then at a TS site? The answer MUST BE "by looks". There is no other answer, unless you know each and every model personally and individually. You later, basically admit this is the case.

Your Analogy:
This doesn't hold up as pertinent here because you are injecting forgone knowledge / assumptions into the equation. In other words, you are stating that people WOULD KNOW that you have people dressed as pro football players, who are, in fact, not. You are also assuming there is malicious intent since the owner of the site (in this case yourself) would KNOW he is selling a false product. In other words, have interjected a "right / wrong" "moral / immoral" argument into this, which I am not arguing (but will address).

My Point Is This:
If you are making determinations that TVs do not belong on TS sites, that is fine as a statement of opinion. However, when you start stating examples to support your argument (not sure if you have done so or not... this was originally directed at another poster), then you MUST admit that you are judging TS status based upon LOOKS.

If that is how you judge TS status, you lose credibility to speak on the topic at all because your criteria is SO LOW (beauty) it just can't be taken seriously.

My points preclude your points because you would never know you were being "fooled" if you, in fact, were not making an APPEARANCE BASED judgement or (apparently this has been done?) were not told by the site owner that this was in fact the case.

The Right / Wrong:
I am not making a right / wrong / moral argument about the site owner's representation. I understand that argument. I don't agree with it. Here is why... It comes down to malicious intent, and again, definitions.

First, in order to make a right / wrong / moral argument, you MUST state that there is malicious intent on behalf of the site owner to "fool" subscribers. In all honesty, I don't believe that is the case here (originally aimed at Grooby). If that were the case, and provable, you would have a point. It isn't the case, is not provable, and thus the right / wrong argument is invalid.

In addition, a site owner may have their own definition of TV and TS, which may or may not agree with your own. Based upon THEIR definitions, they choose who they will allow to model on the site.

The CONSUMER is using HIS/HER own set of definitions to define the two terms, and because of that will come to a different conclusion as to WHO is TV and who is TS in their minds.

Your postulation that ALL people agree that a TV is a man with a fetish for women's clothing and that a TS perceives herself as a woman AND is identified as such... is just not as clear cut as you think. The very fact that you include "is identified as such" in your definition would leave A VERY large portion of the TS community OUTSIDE of your definition. NOT ALL TS women "pass".

Where am I wrong?

[GroobyKrissy]

Ok so in other words, only two would merit Belong and those are the two at the end of Row 1.
The reason is simple enough, they probably look good with their clothes off, and both also look like they can get hard. This reveals that my preference is for fully functional ts rather than tv's.

Porn is not directly related to democracy or equality as far as I can tell, everyone is not welcome, just as you would not want me in any of your films or photo-shoots, and that is not false modesty. Or maybe it also reveals how old-fashioned I am as I would not be interested in seeing the cast of Tod Browning's film Freaks in an orgy, allowing licence for the title of the film. Even tattoos are a turn off. This also suggests that there may be posters who would like to see Jan Morris or April Ashley in a porn shoot, on the other hand I am aware that there is a large audience for tv's on this board. Perhaps your survey is doomed for these reasons.

The survey is faulty for a great deal more reasons than that, but is meant only as a chance to those who have spoken big about being able to tell the difference between who and who is not TS by a picture, to show just how smart they are.

I'm not interested in collecting responses, there are only a few people that I really wanted to actually take it. Thus far all three have not, as I expected.

Thanks for your answers though. I will tell you this... you did very poorly :)

[iagodelgado]

Anybody who wants to play this game should be at the HungDevils link below.

It's about a competition supposedly for gay guys (who like to wear dresses).

The trouble is, although not permitted to enter, transsexuals seem to win it as often as the gay guys do.

Miss Brasil Gay at http://www.hungdevils.com/index.php?/topic/17812-miss-brasil-gay/

[Stavros]

The survey is faulty for a great deal more reasons than that, but is meant only as a chance to those who have spoken big about being able to tell the difference between who and who is not TS by a picture, to show just how smart they are.

I'm not interested in collecting responses, there are only a few people that I really wanted to actually take it. Thus far all three have not, as I expected.

Thanks for your answers though. I will tell you this... you did very poorly :)

I don't understand -you want people to identify the pictures of people they think belong in porn, not which one is tv, ts etc. The incoherence of the task means that 'doing poorly' has no meaning -unless you think that by not assuming Jan Morris 'belongs' in porn I am revealing an acceptale/unacceptable prejudice. Anyway as far as I am concerned, when it comes to porn, I am prejudiced. But if it was about real life, I would judge people as I find them, not on the basis of their appearance.

[GroobyKrissy]

I don't understand -you want people to identify the pictures of people they think belong in porn, not which one is tv, ts etc. The incoherence of the task means that 'doing poorly' has no meaning -unless you think that by not assuming Jan Morris 'belongs' in porn I am revealing an acceptale/unacceptable prejudice. Anyway as far as I am concerned, when it comes to porn, I am prejudiced. But if it was about real life, I would judge people as I find them, not on the basis of their appearance.

Sorry... I thought I stated it clearly but obviously have not. In gearing it towards a few, select people, I probably screwed up the language. Here is a MUCH easier way to present it:

It has been stated numerous times now by a few that they can determine by looks if a person is TS or TV. So, look at these pictures and make your votes. There are only TWO valid responses to this: YES and NO.

The persons pictured are a mixture of TS (once names are revealed, not-debatable, at least to me), TV (also non-debatable or self titled), men, women, and other.

Your answers can be as follows:

YES (TS)

NO (NOT TS - which would include all those you think are genetic men, genetic women, TV, and other)

[alpha2117]

Even then it's hard Krissy - for instance the person who has been successful in Japan would be No now but I suspect may end up being Yes in the future as possibly would one of the male models who do womens wear who from what I've seen probably is a Yes really and will transition post their current career.

I didn't play because I'm not overly hung up on the label thing. People are what they are and I'm never stressed about labeling them. All the TS's are women as far as I'm concerned because thats the way they would prefer to be treated - you cant get that from photos of course. I wouldn't feel comfortable labeling people I didn't know just on one small photo.

[GroobyKrissy]

Even then it's hard Krissy - for instance the person who has been successful in Japan would be No now but I suspect may end up being Yes in the future as possibly would one of the male models who do womens wear who from what I've seen probably is a Yes really and will transition post their current career.

I didn't play because I'm not overly hung up on the label thing. People are what they are and I'm never stressed about labeling them. All the TS's are women as far as I'm concerned because thats the way they would prefer to be treated - you cant get that from photos of course. I wouldn't feel comfortable labeling people I didn't know just on one small photo.

I totally agree... it is difficult. Which is kind of my point.

Anyway, this is pretty much dead as obviously the people it was intended for aren't going to put themselves out there and shown as not quite the experts they think they are.

And just for the record, this isn't any sort of trap or setup. I'm not going to be holding anyone who votes accountable in the future, saying "Oh, remember that thread where you made decisions based on looks?" Obviously, that's what I'm asking people to do here. This isn't for the purposes of that sort of discussion. It is partly just out of interest, partly geared towards a few, and partly to illustrate the point that the TS community is VERY diverse when it comes to looks.

[nysprod]

No, that is not my point at all.

So, the question, based upon your definitions and your subsequent statement is HOW do YOU (the consumer) make that distinction then at a TS site? The answer MUST BE "by looks". There is no other answer, unless you know each and every model personally and individually. You later, basically admit this is the case.

That is EXACTLY my point...sometimes, I cannot make the distinction...but if the owner of the website tells me that there sometimes are TV's on the site, I as a consumer am NOT going to be happy with that

Your Analogy:
This doesn't hold up as pertinent here because you are injecting forgone knowledge / assumptions into the equation. In other words, you are stating that people WOULD KNOW that you have people dressed as pro football players, who are, in fact, not.

NO. The point I'm making with my analogy is that I COULD put people dressed as football players and SAY they're pros which would be the wrong thing to do, just like putting a TV on TS website and presenting them as TS is

My Point Is This:
If you are making determinations that TVs do not belong on TS sites, that is fine as a statement of opinion. However, when you start stating examples to support your argument (not sure if you have done so or not... this was originally directed at another poster), then you MUST admit that you are judging TS status based upon LOOKS.

I'm not making any assumptions on who is TV...the owner of the site is telling me there are TV's on a TS site, and I don't think that's right

If that is how you judge TS status, you lose credibility to speak on the topic at all because your criteria is SO LOW (beauty) it just can't be taken seriously.

My points preclude your points because you would never know you were being "fooled" if you, in fact, were not making an APPEARANCE BASED judgement or (apparently this has been done?) were not told by the site owner that this was in fact the case.

Right, I didn't know I was being fooled until I was told

The Right / Wrong:
I am not making a right / wrong / moral argument about the site owner's representation. I understand that argument. I don't agree with it. Here is why... It comes down to malicious intent, and again, definitions.

First, in order to make a right / wrong / moral argument, you MUST state that there is malicious intent on behalf of the site owner to "fool" subscribers. In all honesty, I don't believe that is the case here (originally aimed at Grooby). If that were the case, and provable, you would have a point. It isn't the case, is not provable, and thus the right / wrong argument is invalid.

I have no idea what the intent was, malicious or not

In addition, a site owner may have their own definition of TV and TS, which may or may not agree with your own. Based upon THEIR definitions, they choose who they will allow to model on the site.

The owner must have some definition of what makes a TV different than a TS, otherwise there wouldn't be a "TV" label

The CONSUMER is using HIS/HER own set of definitions to define the two terms, and because of that will come to a different conclusion as to WHO is TV and who is TS in their minds.

Your postulation that ALL people agree that a TV is a man with a fetish for women's clothing and that a TS perceives herself as a woman AND is identified as such... is just not as clear cut as you think. The very fact that you include "is identified as such" in your definition would leave A VERY large portion of the TS community OUTSIDE of your definition. NOT ALL TS women "pass".

Where am I wrong?

Here's where you're wrong: We expect Grooby sites to have TS women. This is the first I've heard that they sometimes have TV's. If they've never said this before, and they haven't to my knowledge, I don't think it's right.

And "passing" has nothing to do with it. I'm not looking for a TS woman to "pass" as a GG and I don't think most guys like me are either...you want proof? Go look at the popularity of the "Bulges and Filled Underwear" thread. Or how about this...do you see one thread on here entitled "Passable Girls"?

And BTW, there's another thread on here that's very popular,,,the "Sissy/TV/CD" thread...so I have nothing against TV's CD's etc. and I have nothing against having them on your site or anyone's site. Axtually, if I were running a site, judging by the popularity of that thread I definitely would have this content on my site. BUT, I would definitely label them as such.

[GroobyKrissy]

Here's where you're wrong: We expect Grooby sites to have TS women. This is the first I've heard that they sometimes have TV's. If they've never said this before, and they haven't to my knowledge, I don't think it's right.

And "passing" has nothing to do with it. I'm not looking for a TS woman to "pass" as a GG and I don't think most guys like me are either...you want proof? Go look at the popularity of the "Bulges and Filled Underwear" thread. Or how about this...do you see one thread on here entitled "Passable Girls"?

And BTW, there's another thread on here that's very popular,,,the "Sissy/TV/CD" thread...so I have nothing against TV's CD's etc. and I have nothing against having them on your site or anyone's site. Just label them as such.

Fair enough. I wasn't addressing popularity (vs) at all though.

Concisely spoken and although I don't agree entirely, I'm tired having gone through this before and I don't feel like rehashing the whole thing today and here.

So, if it is OK with you, I will take your points and concede them in this thread without an admission of total agreement.

Thanks for keeping things civil. I understand your points and would be happy to pick this up at a later date.

[nysprod]

Fair enough. I wasn't addressing popularity (vs) at all though.

Concisely spoken and although I don't agree entirely, I'm tired having gone through this before and I don't feel like rehashing the whole thing today and here.

So, if it is OK with you, I will take your points and concede them in this thread without an admission of total agreement.

Thanks for keeping things civil. I understand your points and would be happy to pick this up at a later date.

Likewise, Krissy. I think the one universal thing is that people don't want to be fooled, even when it's said upfront. As an example, you won't find (at least on the first few pages) a futanari thread...or a thread where dicks have been 'shopped onto GG's.

Have a Happy New Year.

[GroobyKrissy]

Likewise, Krissy. I think the one universal thing is that people don't want to be fooled, even when it's said upfront. As an example, you won't find (at least on the first few pages) a futanari thread...or a thread where dicks have been 'shopped onto GG's.

Have a Happy New Year.

I don't know about that... fooling people is one of the premises that my site is built around... i.e. - Real sex and/or exhibitionism with real people who often aren't aware of my sexual identity until...

In the roughly, 6 years that I've had my site, I have had ONE actual Member out of (let's see...push push... carry the one... that would be a gross of) more than 4,000 say to me (paraphrased), "You know, I thought you had tits. I want my money back" (which I ended up doing).

I market myself to both the TS porn consumer and the TV porn consumer... Well, I market myself to anyone, really.

Anyway, a discussion for another time but an interesting point for sure.

You have a VERY HAPPY and SAFE NEW YEAR as well!

[giovanni_hotel]

Early transition transgendered women should not be featured on porn sites. Most guys are just going to see a CD and not an early stage TG, and I can't imagine any trans-chick who's not even on a hormone replacement regimen, not including those rare TGs who still look feminine with minimal to no hormones, would think they look feminine to most men attracted to TS.

I don't think it's unfair for a guy to think a poorly transitioned TG is actually CD/DQ in photos, since there's very little difference in their physical appearance.

And headshots of middle aged GGs/TGs/CDs proves nothing, unless you know of a porn site that features headshots exclusively.

[nysprod]

Early transition transgendered women should not be featured on porn sites. Most guys are just going to see a CD and not an early stage TG

Lol...speak for yourself man, those early-transitioned traps are HOT!

[VictoriaVeil]

I don't know about that... fooling people is one of the premises that my site is built around... i.e. - Real sex and/or exhibitionism with real people who often aren't aware of my sexual identity until...

In the roughly, 6 years that I've had my site, I have had ONE actual Member out of (let's see...push push... carry the one... that would be a gross of) more than 4,000 say to me (paraphrased), "You know, I thought you had tits. I want my money back" (which I ended up doing).

I market myself to both the TS porn consumer and the TV porn consumer... Well, I market myself to anyone, really.

Anyway, a discussion for another time but an interesting point for sure.

You have a VERY HAPPY and SAFE NEW YEAR as well!

works for me... Why I signed on where I did... ;)

[GroobyKrissy]

Early transition transgendered women should not be featured on porn sites. Most guys are just going to see a CD and not an early stage TG, and I can't imagine any trans-chick who's not even on a hormone replacement regimen, not including those rare TGs who still look feminine with minimal to no hormones, would think they look feminine to most men attracted to TS.

I don't think it's unfair for a guy to think a poorly transitioned TG is actually CD/DQ in photos, since there's very little difference in their physical appearance.

And headshots of middle aged GGs/TGs/CDs proves nothing, unless you know of a porn site that features headshots exclusively.

As I've stated earlier, I have a better understanding now (since you have defined your terms) of your outlook on the TV community and the TS community, so I understand the place that you're coming from.

I think your view of the TS community is very screwed up, but you're entitled to hold that opinion based up your stated definitions, just as I am entitled to hold mine... agreed?

A couple of things then.

Some would find the exchange of the terms TS and TG used interchangeably to be incorrect. I'm not sure if you're doing that purposefully or not but for the sake of this conversation, I'll assume that in your mind, they are the same thing and use the terms accordingly.

The fact that you even state that there is such a thing as "...a poorly transitioned TG..." shows an inherent disdain for what it means to be TG. In my opinion there is no such thing as "...a poorly transitioned TG...", that is to say, the appearance does not change the essence of being TG, and thus, "...poorly transitioned..." is simply a judgement based on looks. That is to say, you're calling that person "unattractive". Is that fair to say?

So it is not the TV v TS status that is even in question in your mind. It is an issue of attractiveness, which was my original point many, many moons ago, and remains the core point.

The fact that you keep referring to Drag Queens in this mix AT ALL would be offensive to the TS community AND, probably, the DQ community. Neither belong to the other. Again, I'm not sure if this is intentional, or you truly think the two are related. Drag Queens are performers, often gay men. Generally, they are not TS and do not consider themselves to be. The best example of this is, of course, RP. The term DQ, in my opinion should not even be anywhere CLOSE to being mentioned in a serious conversation about the TV (fetish) or TS/TG community.

As for your head shots comment... THAT, is my point. You've just made it (to a lesser extent) for me. Pictures mean nothing, at least nothing that should empower you to make a lifestyle judgement on anyone else. An attractive / unattractive judgement, sure.

I think somewhere back you stated, (paraphrasing here) "I know a TV when I see one." Granted, you later said I think that you weren't always correct. Still, just for kicks and giggles, I'd love to see how you do. Would you mind?

[nysprod]

I don't know about that... fooling people is one of the premises that my site is built around... i.e. - Real sex and/or exhibitionism with real people who often aren't aware of my sexual identity until...

Lol...that isn't the kind of "fooling" I was referring to...actually, that's a hot scenario!

[GroobyKrissy]

Lol...that isn't the kind of "fooling" I was referring to...actually, that's a hot scenario!

Yeah, I know... just being silly.

I am actually completely surprised at how many guys :whistle: I fool around with / tease :hide-1: who say they have never even considered fooling around with a Tranny (usually their wording) but then are willing to put themselves on camera with me :fuckin:. Personally, I think it is a pretty interesting insight into the greater scope of sexuality, that is, men privately :confused: are far more accepting that we give them credit for sometimes... or it could just be guys thinking with their cocks at the moment :party:. I'm not sure.

[GroobyKrissy]

works for me... Why I signed on where I did... ;)

Hiya Victoria :)

You coming to the TA's this year? I'm still debating but hope you are able to make it :)

[MrsKellyPierce]

1) Older TS
2) Female
3) CD
4) Too photoshopped to tell if ts or cd
5) Early TS
6) Female
7) female
8) Early ts
9) Male
10) TS
11) Female
12) Ts
13) Female
14) Ts
15) Ts
16) male
17) Female
18) Too photoshopped to tell but I'd say cd
19) TS
20) gay/fem-boi
21) Female to male
22) Too photoshopped to tell
23) Fem boi
24) drag queen
25) female
26) Too photoshopped to tell but I would guess female impersonator
27) lesbian
28) Glasses cover the face
29) fem boi
30) picture too small

[GroobyKrissy]

Thanks Kelly :)

You got a few right...

[giovanni_hotel]

DQ/CD are for the most part the same thing to me; (gay) men who dress up part time, for either performance or sexual kink.
Still doesn't make them transgendered.

Is there a real distinction between MTF transsexuals and transgendered women?? This is a semantical argument IMO. If there is a difference in terms of appearance, I'd like to know.
Again you're presenting PICTURES, not asking people to interpret an individual's psychological identity.

SO yeah I use TG and TS interchangeably. I have yet to hear any woman on this board feel the need to 'correct' me.

Finally, we're talking about TG/TS/TV/CD/DQ in the context of PORN. The appearance of a TG/TS under this framework is what matters most, not ultimately who they are on the inside.

Early transition TS/TG don't fit the image of what most men consider to be transgendered women (in porn), that's why many of us call them TV/CD; men dressing as women for the kink or the hustle, but not a part of their identity as transgendered women.

No you can't see it. No you can't know from looking at a picture. Which is why I don't even know why you're still continuing in this brain dead exercise.

In porn and for those of us that only have pics to base our opinions on, I and many others prefer to see tgirls who have significantly transitioned their physical appearance to match their internal psychological state.

I don't need to see pics of what I consider to be men and my being told by someone like you Grooby that they are in fact transgendered women, or could be.

That's great. But no one is trying to SEE that. We want to see trans-WOMEN.

[alpha2117]

Somewhat bizarrely I dont think 18 is photoshopped. One of the few I've seen in video in movement and that's actually what they look like ... heaps of make-up of course. When Krissy is finished with her comp thing I'll post a link because it's one of the most bizarre cross-cultural things I've ever seen.

[amberskyi]

TG stands for transgendered which is an umbrella term for all gender variant people.it includes transsexuals but also androgynous people, inter sex, cross dressers, and pretty much anyone that dont fit traditional gender roles.
a transsexual is someone who not only feels like they are the opposite gender than they were born but they also often feel compelled to change into their desired gender through the use of medicine and surgeries.

all this can be found on wikipedia guys.google is really your best friend lol

"Transgender (pron.: /trænzˈdʒɛndər/) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles."
"Transsexual people identify as a member of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth, and desire to live and be accepted as such."
Transgender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender)

[littletwink]

4. Doesn't belong - too draggy.
5. Doesn't belong - too draggy

I love both. They look like they could pretend to be very bad girls for the camera. :)

[GroobyKrissy]

DQ/CD are for the most part the same thing to me; (gay) men who dress up part time, for either performance or sexual kink.
Still doesn't make them transgendered.

Is there a real distinction between MTF transsexuals and transgendered women?? This is a semantical argument IMO. If there is a difference in terms of appearance, I'd like to know.
Again you're presenting PICTURES, not asking people to interpret an individual's psychological identity.

SO yeah I use TG and TS interchangeably. I have yet to hear any woman on this board feel the need to 'correct' me.

Finally, we're talking about TG/TS/TV/CD/DQ in the context of PORN. The appearance of a TG/TS under this framework is what matters most, not ultimately who they are on the inside.

Early transition TS/TG don't fit the image of what most men consider to be transgendered women (in porn), that's why many of us call them TV/CD; men dressing as women for the kink or the hustle, but not a part of their identity as transgendered women.

No you can't see it. No you can't know from looking at a picture. Which is why I don't even know why you're still continuing in this brain dead exercise.

In porn and for those of us that only have pics to base our opinions on, I and many others prefer to see tgirls who have significantly transitioned their physical appearance to match their internal psychological state.

I don't need to see pics of what I consider to be men and my being told by someone like you Grooby that they are in fact transgendered women, or could be.

That's great. But no one is trying to SEE that. We want to see trans-WOMEN.

Since Amberskyi already noted the difference between the TG / TS thing, I will not go into that. Personally, I don't care either and use both terms... some people feel very strongly about it though... It was just more of an FYI and to further the point that these terms are not as well defined and accepted as you would believe.

I understand the context of porn... I've already conceded that point in an earlier post in the other thread.

So, the rest of your post is understandable given your aforementioned definitions. I understand that and although I don't agree and can state my opinions, you are free to do so as well... agreed? I will try to educate as I can (and I don't mean that condescendingly AT ALL) and you're free to comment back. I get your point of view... I just don't like it.

In your last sentence, you said this:

We want to see trans-WOMEN...

In the previous sentence you said this:

I don't need to see pics of what I consider to be men...

The key here is "I CONSIDER". It is a subjective opinion. In other words, it doesn't matter what YOU CONSIDER... the people are STILL TS (at least presenting that way... which I think you agree... you cannot make an accurate distinction that they are in fact, telling the truth or not just by a picture, set of pictures, or a video).

If I were to say, "People who call themselves Black but have fair skin are not really Black," there would be an outrage.

This is no different. It is that simple. We've yet to get to that point (where the two equate) but it is simply no different. Regardless of the medium (porn), you should still respect the presentation (identity) of the people involved, and NOT make that distinction based upon pictures (and publicly state it... again, not intended for you since I can't recall you having done that).

[GroobyKrissy]

DQ/CD are for the most part the same thing to me; (gay) men who dress up part time, for either performance or sexual kink.

Sorry...missed this. Again, pointing out the Drag Queen reference was basically to point out, in part, that these terms are not as well defined as you'd think. Call a Drag Queen a "crossdresser" and you'll most likely get a stiletto in your eye. Although technically true, the term "crossdresser" is largely viewed as derogatory. Call a TS (regardless of transitioning status) a Drag Queen and you'll find you've offended the TS AND the Drag Queen. Go figure that one out!

And again... you are not quite as up on these terms as you think. A CD is typically NOT gay. It is a sexual kink. The two terms are DEFINITELY not interchangeable.

See how complex these waters are! It is just not as simple as you'd think to separate everyone out into neat, little categories, but yes, I understand you have your own set of opinions and definitions. I'm just telling you what is more "accepted" terminology.

[GroobyKrissy]

Somewhat bizarrely I dont think 18 is photoshopped. One of the few I've seen in video in movement and that's actually what they look like ... heaps of make-up of course. When Krissy is finished with her comp thing I'll post a link because it's one of the most bizarre cross-cultural things I've ever seen.

18 is not photoshopped as far as I know except for maybe some brightening. I, personally, like I stated earlier, did nothing to these pictures except to make them similar in size.

BTW... none of the pictures are digital, "faked", or photoshopped, as far as I know. Possibly number 4... but I have seen actual pictures that are that good so I don't think so.

[GroobyKrissy]

TG stands for transgendered which is an umbrella term for all gender variant people.it includes transsexuals but also androgynous people, inter sex, cross dressers, and pretty much anyone that dont fit traditional gender roles.
a transsexual is someone who not only feels like they are the opposite gender than they were born but they also often feel compelled to change into their desired gender through the use of medicine and surgeries.

all this can be found on wikipedia guys.google is really your best friend lol

"Transgender (pron.: /trænzˈdʒɛndər/) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles."
"Transsexual people identify as a member of the sex opposite to that assigned at birth, and desire to live and be accepted as such."
Transgender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender)

Thanks. You stated this so much more succinctly than I would have.

[giovanni_hotel]

..........

[GroobyKrissy]

1. Lily McBeth - Noted TS
2. Martin Cohn - Male Model
3. Luiss San Marguia - Male Model
4. Megan - Drag Queen
5. Unknown Drag Queen (on drag queen related website)
6. Daisy - Drag Queen
7. Danielle King - Noted TS Activist
8. Lucy Smith - Controversial TS (NHS incident)
9. Jan Morris - TS Author
10. April Ashley - Noted TS
11. Elderly Lady (genetic)
12. Sarah - TS (post FF surgery)
13. Norma Ballhorn - Controversial Crossdresser
14. Cathy - TS (TS dating site)
15. Amanda Simpson - noted TS
16. CeCe McDonald - Convicted TS murderer
17. Julia Oliver - TS, consultant (defunct)
18. Yohio - Swedish male, CD
19. Susan - TS (pre FF surgery) Same person as 12.
20. David Paris - Male Model
21. Daniela Sea - Genetic Female (Actress)
22. Young Lady (genetic)
23. James Varley - Male Model
24. Unknown Drag Queen - Taken from Drag Queen related site
25. Aya Kamkawa - TS - Noted Japanese TS
26. Drag Queen - Tim
27. Elderly Lady
28. Elderly Lady
29. Bill Kaulitz - Male Model
30. Andrej Pejic - Male Model (had to keep this small because of recognition factor)

There you go! How did you do?

[kukm4]

Is #6 right?

6. Daisy - Drag Queen

google image search is listing pic as Daisy De La Hoya from Rock of Love 2

[GroobyKrissy]

Is #6 right?

6. Daisy - Drag Queen

google image search is listing pic as Daisy De La Hoya from Rock of Love 2

Could possibly be right. This picture was listed quite a few times on a few different Drag Queen sites under a variety of different names... I think I ended up using Daisy because it was used the most... Now I see why! Probably a case of "wishing and praying" by the posters.

The tattoos are right so I'd say your listing is probably accurate. Sorry folks! And my apologies to Daisy ;)

#3 should also be spelled "Murguia" typo... Sorry.

[nysprod]

Lol...daisy got used the most...I'll bet...

[GroobyKrissy]

Just spotted another mistake too...

12. and 19. same person - Sarah... NOT Susan. Was talking to my sister (Susan) on the phone when typing this.

Sorry!