Results 51 to 60 of 68
-
04-16-2007 #51Originally Posted by classydtwngrl
There simply is no way that the conditions can be meshed as you describe.
That is not to say that the early stages of someone who is ts, and someone who is cd/tv may appear to be similar situations- but from a psy perspective they have almost nothing (if not nothing) in common.
You can talk about brain scans all you want, but that does not change the fact that the two conditions are in different parts of the DSM, in different categories.
Think of it this way, if we were to agree that a pre-everything ts doing parttime is crossdressing per your use of the word for shake of arguement, then that still does not make them a TV per the DSMIV... and this thread is about the differences between tvs and ts's.
The two conditions are more different from each other than a skitzoid personality disorder is in relation to skitzophrenia.
Edit/ADD:
Also, if you want to get really picky- crossdress using a breakdown of the word (cross & dress) doesn't make any references to birth sex. In the simplest form, crossdressing means dressing of the opposite... but that can mean different things to different people. Opposite gender? Sex?
Its all about word usage. I apply the term CD as opposite gender- not opposite sex.
In a nut shell CD is the action no matter how you use the term, TV or TS is the condition. Someone can not be a "CD"- thats merely slang, they can be a TV or a TS only.
-
04-16-2007 #52Seems to me the animosity between TS's and CD/TV's is nothing more than ego and superiority complexes. (i.e. "I'm better because I live full time and don't just dress on weekends". "I'm better because mine is a medical condition and I'm working on it, whereas you're just jerking off in hose."). Based on that, all I can is: GET THE FUCK OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE
The jerking off in hose bit I specifically stated was not my position, nor one I agreed with-- I was merely making a point about the severe misconceptions out there and how those misconceptions are not always acurate. Perhaps I was not clear enough with that point.
When some ignorant piece of shit scumbag is beating you senseless in a dark alley outside your favorite nightclub, they're not going to give rat's ass how your doctor classifies you. They're not going to care whether you're a "guy in a dress" or a "woman born into a man's body", to them, you're just another "freak".
LGBT groups include as much as they do because of these similar "issues" in society- but that doesn't make everyone from each subgroup the same as everyone else. That doesn't mean that anyone is better either- just different.
People group the same way based on mental health conditions... in the 19th century you'd end up locked in a cage for being any number of things currently in the DSMIV... schizophrenia and pyscholosis may be as different as apples and oranges but at the time they were going to get the same treatments and the same societal ramifications.
Truth be told, getting back to the OP- TV and TS are both medical conditions per the APA & DSMIV and I don't think anyone here has said that either of the two are *not* a medical condition. Different pages of the same book if you will.
-
04-16-2007 #53
-
04-16-2007 #54Originally Posted by SarahG
Apologies if you believed it was meant for you and only you. I was actually heading back to edit that for clarity, but figured I'd just respond here instead.
I did quote you for a reason, and that reason is because it seemed to me that you were using the "medical condition" vs. "fetish" to justify the "wall of separation" that is built by TS's to keep out CD/TV's and vice versa.
My point is simply that just because one is a medical condition whereas the other is more of a fetish/fantasy thing, it's pretty farkin stupid for T-Girls of any shape/variety/condition/etc.. to be throwing girls from the "other side" to the wolves.
Looking back on the thread more, I realize that you were likely just pointing out the difference because of posters claiming that "All TS's began as CD's"
But my point is this....who the fuck cares? You girls have to all be in this together, the more you ostracize from within, the weaker you are when dealing with ostracism from the outside. And again, as far as most of the outside is concerned, there ain't a goddamn bit of difference between a TS, a TV, and a CD.
Success lies not in being the best, but in doing your best.
-
04-16-2007 #55
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Posts
- 181
Originally Posted by SarahG
Originally Posted by SarahG
Did you actually read the DSMIV?
Gender Identity Disorder
Paraphilias
Exhibitionism.
Fetishism.
Frotteurism.
Pedophilia.
Sexual Masochism.
Sexual Sadism.
Transvestic Fetishism.
Voyeurism.
Associated Features:
Separation Anxiety Disorder
Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Symptoms of Depression
Transvestic Fetishism (funny i didnt know you could have the same characteristics of a TV while being a TS)
Other Paraphilias.
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.
Differential Diagnosis:
Some disorders have similar or even the same symptoms. The clinician, therefore, in his/her diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders which need to be ruled out to establish a precise diagnosis. Children with Gender Identity Disorder may manifest coexisting Associated Personality Disorders are more common among males than among females being evaluated at adult gender clinics.
Schizophrenia.
Delusions.
LOL whats next........ are they gonna come out with paranoia as a 3rd
LOL its a wonder we dont call flamboyant metrosexuals, transvestites or transsexuals based upon that
that pretty much confirms that TS, TV, CD are linked together based upon psychological evaluations, not really much of a diffrence now is there
-
04-16-2007 #56
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- In the hearts of the kind, and in the fears of the wicked.
- Posts
- 3,968
Originally Posted by biguy4tvtscd
motivations are markedly different from transsexuals. The vast majority
of cross dresserss or transvestites, crossdress for fun, for emotional
comfort, or for sexual arousal. This activity is often limited in it's duration
and degree, and for the most part the transvestite is quite content to
remain in their birth gender.
Transsexuals who also come under the transgender umbrella, desire to
live full time as members of the gender opposite to their birth
gender.They will utilize surgical, chemical, and legal mean to do so. They
often are veery unhappy in their birth genders.
What they have in common is that they are both transgendered, that they
may dress in clothing that is not congruent to their birth genders, and
that 'society' often is not able to differentiate between the two groups.
Should there be solidarity between the two groups. If so on what issues.
As 'weekend women' they are able to opt out of the discrimination that
the transsexual must face 24/7/365. If anything they benefit from our
being on the front lines on a daily basis.
Further it often is the transvestite who will discriminate against the
transsexual for various reasons.
Admittedly I am somewhat of a hardliner on this issue. But having said
that I don't feel that transsexuals are better than transvestites, or that
hetero-sexuals are better than the transgendered.
My concerns are if the actions of the transvestite will be negatively
reflective on the transsexual.
As I stated previously, if they are with us in our goals, and reflect
positively upon the transcommunity, I embrace them as allies, just as I
would the heterosexual, or any of the groups in the GLB.
If they do not, then they are part of the problem, and not part of the
solution.
-
04-17-2007 #57Originally Posted by peggygee
Originally Posted by peggygee
-
04-17-2007 #58
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- "You ESCAPED from somewhere didn't you?"
- Posts
- 1,170
Sorry, did you say Scotch-dressers?
the majority rules, and the majority are passive bitches.
-
04-17-2007 #59
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- In the hearts of the kind, and in the fears of the wicked.
- Posts
- 3,968
Originally Posted by Ecstatic
blurring of the masculine and feminine, but that of course over-simplifies
the case.
I would say it falls under the transgender umbrella, with perhaps an
example being those who are intersexual, or those that change their
gender at various stages of their life.
The novel by Virginia Woolf and the subsequent movie 'Orlando'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107756/ comes to mind.
-
04-17-2007 #60Originally Posted by peggygee
I wasn't thinking of androgyny, though that of course is also a form of bigenderism, where the two genders are as you say "blurred." Nor intersexed, which is physiologically quite distinct in any of its forms (though psychologically perhaps quite similar in some ways). I was thinking more of those who change their gender at different times, not so much stages of their lives, but "stations" of their lives: they are female in some circumstances, and male in others.
I don't know. Although I have several friends who I think fit this description, I still don't really understand it very well. Interesting topic, though.