How do Tgirls on estrogn get hard?

[Wicked Mira]

http://pflag-es.org/marchapril06.html[/url]

I couldn't agree more! What is the fixation people have with labels? What is the source of the need to cateogorize, label and put people in neat little boxes? I think it's fear. What one person does and how they express themselves doesn't mean anything about how someone else expresses themselves. Male, female, TS, TG, CD. Label me what you want, it doesn't matter to me nor completely define me. I'm just me and I express myself in accordance with how I wish to define myself.

As for this entire hormone discussion, I'm concerned about misinformation being dispensed as though what is true for one person is true for all. And, by the way, I think scientifically there is a basis for asserting that hormones do cause physiological changes in the neural pathways of the brain. After ten years of being post-op and being someone highly attuned to their own thoughts, emotions and behaviors I do believe that time (and it takes a long time for the physiological changes to occur) does cause fundamental changes not just in anatomy but neurologically. Medically, the female brain and male brain are structurally different and how brains process information is different, generally speaking. If you lived any period of time on largely testosterone or largely on estrogen (post-puberty) your brain developed accordingly. And thoughts and emotions stem from the cerebral cortex, not from the genitals.

Ask any endocrinologist and I believe they will tell you that there is no exact science behind hormone therapy as everybody's body is different and people tend to react differently to different levels and doses.

But, why can't we just allow people to be themselves and give each other a lot more slack?

[SarahG]

[quote=Wicked Mira][quote="tabathasiren
What is the fixation people have with labels? What is the source of the need to cateogorize, label and put people in neat little boxes? I think it's fear.[/quote]

I don't think it is fear per say, I think that it is but human nature to try to make observations, to compare, classify, to understand... in a sense these observations and classifications are legitimate. There are real and tangible differences between feminine and masculine genders, hence the whole transistion thing.

Would transitioning exist in a world in which these differences were all moot? I don't particularly think it would... at least not in the sense that we know it as.

People can claim to be whatever they want, that doesn't always make it so. People can use terminology however they want, that doesn't make that terminology usage accurate.

But, why can't we just allow people to be themselves and give each other a lot more slack?

That one is simple. I am not accusing anyone here of playing apart in this, BUT- people's actions, protrayls, illusions have drastic ramifications on how we are seen by the general population. I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to be themselves, just pointing out that those actions have consequences in how we are seen in the eyes of others. There are certainly more than enough misconceptions, stereotypes and transphobic images to go around without people proliferating them on the inside of the community.

[Wicked Mira]

Your points are well made, Sarah, and I can't disagree. I do think, however, that at the bottom of the need to classify, categorize and label is a fear of the unknown, which is also human nature. Gender, more than anything in our culture, touches upon that fear. We need predictability, consistency as a species to feel safe. We need men to be men and women to be women. Also at the crux of it is a societal need for conformity. We are made to conform to societal norms on every level since we are born.

However, gender is one of the last frontiers. And there are different aspects of gender--first is the purely biological aspect for reproduction. But even in the animal kingdom (of which we are part, by the way) some species have the ability to change sexes to meet that biological imperative (certain fish, amphibians). Then there is the gender "roles" which is what we're speaking of in this thread.

Because of our need for predictability and consistency, we force genders to adopt specific roles and that has been eroding since the 1960s, maybe earlier. (Rosie the Riveter). My personal opinion is that each of us as human beings contain the essence of male and female and it is the suppression of one in favor of the other that creates problems. Kate Bornstein wrote that we shouldn't think of ourselves as male or female but a third gender. TG's have the courage (or need) to oppose the suppression of who we are. I defy anyone to state a personality characteristic of male or female which is exclusive to that gender.

As for conduct which casts us in a bad light. That is society's problem in preception. I strongly and adamantly believe that sex workers provide an incredibly valuable service to society. Personally, I believe a lot more marriages would fall apart if men didn't have an outlet for what they need. Based largely in our Christian heritage, we have labeled anything to do with our sexuality as based in our "animal" origins and therefore wrong, dirty and sinful. Those who provide the service are, therefore, classified as dirty, immoral and sinful. I would give a thousand Christian evangelical hypocrites for one cock-sucking street tranny who has a good heart.

[SarahG]

As for conduct which casts us in a bad light. That is society's problem in preception. I strongly and adamantly believe that sex workers provide an incredibly valuable service to society. Personally, I believe a lot more marriages would fall apart if men didn't have an outlet for what they need. Based largely in our Christian heritage, we have labeled anything to do with our sexuality as based in our "animal" origins and therefore wrong, dirty and sinful. Those who provide the service are, therefore, classified as dirty, immoral and sinful. I would give a thousand Christian evangelical hypocrites for one cock-sucking street tranny who has a good heart.

I wasn't talking about sex work by any means.

I wouldn't throw all the blame at societal perceptions, that is very much a cop out to explain away the transphobic sentiments out there. There are things in our community that have real ramifications, things of which it is really no surprise that there are bad results. All the infighting, violence, not to mention the widespread stereotypes of stuff like some of the late transistioners running around with only srs completed, using their postop status to "flash" convince people in public that they're "really girls after all"

It's one thing when a society just "gets it entirely wrong" in their perspectives and false assumptions, its another altogether where in addition to such, the process is fed by actions that can have no productive purpose.

The last thing we need is more confusion among the general public pertaining to the differences between those who are ts and those are tv... the reason why medical care for our legitimate medical condition has had such opposition in this country and others like it is directly related to the (false) notion by medical professionals and the general public alike that transsexuality is a sexual fetish or has fetishist components. This generates a lasting legacy of problems for us. Beyond the fiscal drain of out of pocket transitioning expenses, class divisions of appearance based on fiscal access to surgical procedures... it is precisely Bailey & Blanchardist like fetishist philosophies that are used to both prevent governmental protections from extending to our populations and to keep medical treatments as abrasive and far from reach as possible.

Fear is only one aspect of discovery, curiosity is probably a bit greater of a force. People seen to have an appetite for discover, knowledge, expierence... there are simply too many dry, boring, fearless technical or scientific fields out there to merely say we fear what isn't known, so we must try to know everything IMO.

[SarahG]

it is precisely Bailey & Blanchardist like fetishist philosophies that are used to both prevent governmental protections from extending to our populations and to keep medical treatments as abrasive and far from reach as possible.

Not to sound ridiculously new to all this, but I don't suppose you'd know any good places to start reading about this whole Bailey/Blanchard controversy, would you? I picked up a copy of The Man Who Would Be Queen after seeing the recent write-up of Bailey in the Times, and my curiosity about the whole autogynephilia debate has been piqued.

What kind of information are you looking for?

All it really boils down to are a select few nontrans "professionals" who are running around making baseless, evidenceless causation theories after realizing the more controversial, radical, and insane their claims become, the more likely they are to keep their institutional jobs, get raises as publicity arrives, and find any number of special interest proprietors.

Since its all about GID causation theory, only those in the religious right, people who are trans, and the hacks spewing this crap give a damn about the theories and/or their lack of scientific method... and in the end it distracts the community into battling over something that doesn't impact our existance in any tangible way, giving power & control over to opponents from the right whom can take hold of the issue and use it to define GID related dialogs.... there is a reason why in a formal debate, the person who defines the conversation always wins. Politics is no different, Bailey (or Blanchard) debates shift us into the position of reactive rather than proactive policy, waring over scientific fiction while real issues slip to the background.

The book should be evidence enough alone to Bailey's lack of scientific principle.

[SarahG]

it is precisely Bailey & Blanchardist like fetishist philosophies that are used to both prevent governmental protections from extending to our populations and to keep medical treatments as abrasive and far from reach as possible.

Not to sound ridiculously new to all this, but I don't suppose you'd know any good places to start reading about this whole Bailey/Blanchard controversy, would you? I picked up a copy of The Man Who Would Be Queen after seeing the recent write-up of Bailey in the Times, and my curiosity about the whole autogynephilia debate has been piqued.

What kind of information are you looking for?

All it really boils down to are a select few nontrans "professionals" who are running around making baseless, evidenceless causation theories after realizing the more controversial, radical, and insane their claims become, the more likely they are to keep their institutional jobs, get raises as publicity arrives, and find any number of special interest proprietors.

Since its all about GID causation theory, only those in the religious right, people who are trans, and the hacks spewing this crap give a damn about the theories and/or their lack of scientific method... and in the end it distracts the community into battling over something that doesn't impact our existance in any tangible way, giving power & control over to opponents from the right whom can take hold of the issue and use it to define GID related dialogs.... there is a reason why in a formal debate, the person who defines the conversation always wins. Politics is no different, Bailey (or Blanchard) debates shift us into the position of reactive rather than proactive policy, waring over scientific fiction while real issues slip to the background.

The book should be evidence enough alone to Bailey's lack of scientific principle.

Well, while I would definitely agree that it would be an understatement to say that Bailey is way too casual about taking things that "everybody knows" for granted, I did leave the book with the impression that he at least cares about issues of gender identity. I guess the sort of information I am looking for is, first, scientific evidence that contradicts his claims, and, second, information about him that might explain why he gets such a bad rap. I understand that the things he is saying are far from popular in the TG community, but a big part of me wonders how much of his work is discredited and how much of it is just against the party line.

I absolutely do not mean to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Bailey must be emphasizing the politics aspect of things; I just feel like I came into the whole discussion late and wondered if there was a good starting point on the factual issues at hand.

Why look for evidence to run counter his claims when he has no evidence to backup his own?

It just sounds like a dog chasing its tail after a while imo.

The issue is, at least as I see it, that he has no scientific backing in his assertions. You can't just run around without evidence saying that all GID patients are either just really fem gay guys, or guys that get turned on by feminization. What's to discredit when he has no real studies, no expirements, nothing of any value outside of a few twisted, spin'd interviews he made with a few (not many) girls out in public.

If virtually ANYONE involved with a scientific or technological field outside of lgbt "science" made a publication in recent memory without evidence, with over reaching assertions on such a scale... they'd be laughed out of their field. Why does Bailey get a free pass because the subjects are a trivialized, ignored minority?

Ok, I take that back, there are a few people presenting as scientists talking about intelligent design as if it were a scientific field worthy of our classrooms, museums and other institutions... but at least part of the population tends to view them as hacks in the same sense as holocaust deniers are.

[peggygee]

it is precisely Bailey & Blanchardist like fetishist philosophies that are used to both prevent governmental protections from extending to our populations and to keep medical treatments as abrasive and far from reach as possible.

Not to sound ridiculously new to all this, but I don't suppose you'd know any good places to start reading about this whole Bailey/Blanchard controversy, would you? I picked up a copy of The Man Who Would Be Queen after seeing the recent write-up of Bailey in the Times, and my curiosity about the whole autogynephilia debate has been piqued.

At this site you will find Lynn Conway, et al provide intensive, and exhaustive
insight and discussion on Blanchard and Bailey, replete with cites and
supporting material.

[Lady Angela]

Not all male to female transexuals believed they were females all of their life.
Many have been hetrosexual men married to beautiful genetic women. I have a beautiful genetic lady as my ex-wife, and have fathered four beautiful daughters.
My ex-wife and daughters have accepted my transition. My ex-wife now considers me one of her best women friends, and my daughters now refer to me as their other mom, not their dad. I get along well with my ex-wfe and my daughters.
Gradually I became more gay, more femme, started dressing more as a lady, using feminine mannerisms, etc.. and then gradually became more like a woman and wanted to become one, and live and dress as a lady, and be a beautiful, feminine lady and be with a hetrosexual man.
Some male to female transexual women are lifelong femmes, who always wanted to be women, but some are not.

To me, when a person transitions from being a man to being a woman, by doing certain things; not only dressing in women's clothes, and wearing makeup, earrings and jewelry, etc., but using feminine mannerisms, going on female hormones, facial feminization surgery, eletrolysis, wearing feminine hairstyles (short hair or long hair), possibly women's breast implants, etc., and is living, looking, dressing, acting and passing as a lady, etc. and who considers herself a lady,............. then that person is no longer a male, or a "third sex", but a female, a different type of lady from a genetic lady, but still a lady, a transsexual lady.
That is why transexual women are refered to as "her" or "she".
Because I have dome those things, I am no longer a male crossdresser, but a transsexual woman, (regardless of what one or two of you may believe).
And because I am with a handsome masculine hetrosexual man, who considers me his lady, I am no longer a femme gay man, but a beautiful and feminine herosexual lady.

The longer a t-lady is on estrogen and anti-androgens, usually the less virile she is.
It is scientific. Anyone who has gone through it, or who is knowledgable about it, knows that.
It happens to some extent with every t-lady on estrogen and anti-androgens. Although I am sure it varies to what extent, as some of you women have mentioned. But it does happen to every t-lady to some degree. It is scientific. Estrogen and anti-androgens have an effect.
The same with castaration, no way is a t-lady as virile. The testicles produce male hormones. To believe it has no effect on virilty, is false.
Of course many t-women eventually complete their male to female transition, become post-op, and have their male genetalia removed and replaced with female genetalia.
I haven't decided yet when, or if, I am going to have that done.
It is nice having a ladystick, but having female genetalia would be wonderful also.

[Idgaf]

I find my preference for Ladies such as Lady Angela is for them to retain their "ladystick" ,it is both sensual and erotic.
But that is My preference ,I enjoy Ladies with a large "clit". If they enjoy oral that is ,that is of course a personal preference and some ladies do not think that "real" men should perform oral sex ,I think those people should join the 21st Century.

As far as getting and maintaining an erection it is a matter of exercise really.The penis is basically a hydraulic piston as long as more blood flows into the veins supporting the penis than flows out ,a firm erection will occur. That is whay masturbation is self defeating the localized pressure from the hand upon the veins in the penis will cause small holes to appear thus allowing blood a secondary exit from the penis.

Exercising the muscles is very easy and can be done at any time of the day.
First,when urinating try to stop the flow ,then release and try to stop it again.
When you have isolated that muscle group ,do not confuse it with muscles surrounding your anus.
You can begin to do sets of squeeze hold release ,squeeze hold release.
This will tighten the muscle group resonsible for allowing blood to flow out of the penis it will not inhibit flow into the penis.
Practice like doing crunches for your abs except these can be done ,on the bus ,at work ,during lunch ,wherever you desire.

I like sub femme ladies ,if they do or do not get hard or how hard they get is not the issue in my eyes.
I need to be hard to satisfy her and me.

[Lady Angela]

Idgaf,
You are like my man, he also wants me to keep my ladystick. He loves a beautiful, feminine lady with her ladystick.
I might be castrated though, and have my testicles removed but keep my ladystick. My man believes that would be sexy on me, and I wouldn't have to take as much estrogen, or anti-androgens. It is more healthy for a t-lady to be castrated in that regard, whether she is completely post-op, or keeps her ladystick.