LGBT lost in TRANSlation?

[Remy757Photog]

Both statements by Remy
"That one statement shows an inherent flaw, transsexuals transition from one sex to another"

"I think you are confusing me with someone else, I wasn't making the argument that TS must transition."

If by making the argument you mean flat out saying it in so many words, then you were.

You are taking something I said to Fivekatz out of context;

Funny that some who have gone further with their transition than a TV/CD, take issue with TV/CD

My statement was said to inform fivekatz that tv/cd don't transition at all because they don't want to transition from male to female permanently they just want to occasionally wear the clothes of the opposite sex, that is not the same as transitioning or a transsexual. No transsexual would identify as a man that is CD/TV, they would identify as TS/female that just can't (for whatever reason) transition at that particular moment. There are exceptions to that rule of course because in life there are no absolutes, as has Krissy has pointed out, she labels herself as CD/TV on some sites because it helps her marketing, but she identifies as TS/female.

[GroobyKrissy]

I haven't agreed/aligned to anything Bella has said

Remy... BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, PLEASE!

Do you REALLY not understand what "tacit agreement" is, even though I have explained it? I will try ONE MORE TIME. If you're are not willing to understand this point, this conversation is pointless until you actually state plainly what you do and do not believe regarding the original post (mine) because PLAINLY, I do not know the points you are making at this point.

TACIT AGREEMENT - This occurs when multiple people are having a debate about a given subject. Instead of every single person restating arguments that have already been made, you can be said to "tacitly" (without commenting) agree with them if: A. you defend their points. AND THEN B. you do not state disagreement otherwise. The logical inference is that you agree with all subsequent comments they make UNLESS YOU STATE OTHERWISE.

This is not something I have made up, this is an actual point of debate and of law, whereby you can actually convict someone. I dislike just pointing people to a wiki page because I think that is lame... but if that suits you, look the term up.

What is "utter foolishness" is you trying to comment on a term you don't understand. You MUST have "DEFENDED" someone's point, AND THEN NOT DISAGREE with a subsequent point to be accused of tacit agreement as I have stated. People that you have not had direct discourse with or have not defended have no bearing on the term.

Does that make sense?

[Remy757Photog]

Again, you trying to force me to take one side or another, I have my own stance. A transsexual is a person that feels they are born the wrong gender from which they are assigned at birth. That clear enough for you. There is no need for the word 'transition' anywhere in that definition.

I don't feel that CD/TV struggle is the same struggle as TS.

I don't feel that CD/TV should be lumped together in the same group.

I do feel that LGBT organization help the cause of transgender people, though I do think it is not to the same degree as L/G causes, but something is better than nothing.

I do feel all groups of people deserve empathy including CD/TV, well except hate groups, and people that hurt/poach animals, especially those on the endangered list.

Anything else you are still unclear about? I do cry your pardon on any issues/stances that have come across as confusing/conflicting. I'm not going to say I hate/dislike somebody on this board just to make you happy, you are not my puppet master.

[Remy757Photog]

Remy... BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, PLEASE!

Do you REALLY not understand what "tacit agreement" is, even though I have explained it? I will try ONE MORE TIME. If you're are not willing to understand this point, this conversation is pointless until you actually state plainly what you do and do not believe regarding the original post (mine) because PLAINLY, I do not know the points you are making at this point.

TACIT AGREEMENT - This occurs when multiple people are having a debate about a given subject. Instead of every single person restating arguments that have already been made, you can be said to "tacitly" (without commenting) agree with them if: A. you defend their points. AND THEN B. you do not state disagreement otherwise. The logical inference is that you agree with all subsequent comments they make UNLESS YOU STATE OTHERWISE.

This is not something I have made up, this is an actual point of debate and of law, whereby you can actually convict someone. I dislike just pointing people to a wiki page because I think that is lame... but if that suits you, look the term up.

What is "utter foolishness" is you trying to comment on a term you don't understand. You MUST have "DEFENDED" someone's point, AND THEN NOT DISAGREE with a subsequent point to be accused of tacit agreement as I have stated. People that you have not had direct discourse with or have not defended have no bearing on the term.

Does that make sense?

I have not said I agree or I defend anything that Bella has said. Where do you see me defending Bella? Where do you see me having a Direct Discourse with Bella? Don't label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife and I wont think you CD/TV. Don't mention you choose not to transition and I wont ask you why you choose not to transition. These are all things you are saying, not Bella. I'm not making up the fact that you label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife am I?

[GroobyKrissy]

I don't have to word anything the specific way you want just to satisfy what you feel is the only way of agreeing or disagreeing with someone.

"What...[I] feel..." ???

Are you joking? How can you expect to have a reasonable conversation with anyone if there are not "rules" about stating your point of view? Why do you think the "edit" function here is limited to 10 minutes? Because most people realize it is unfair in a debate about anything, especially in writing, to be able to go back and change what you have said. That is why courts have record keepers. That is why police record interrogations. ETC. ETC> Reasonable people expect that if you write something... you mean it. If you write it poorly... you take responsibility for it.

How in God's green earth am I asking anything unreasonable by simply asking that you be:

A. Intellectually honest
B. State plainly what you believe
C. Take responsibility for what you write, including the logical conclusions

THAT IS CALLED HAVING DISCOURSE. If everyone just plays by their own set of rules (i.e. - I can say whatever I want, I don't have to answer your questions, I can change whatever I write to suit my current needs, etc. etc.) you cannot have a meaningful dialogue.

[GroobyKrissy]

I have not said I agree or I defend anything that Bella has said. Where do you see me defending Bella? Where do you see me having a Direct Discourse with Bella? Don't label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife and I wont think you CD/TV. Don't mention you choose not to transition and I wont ask you why you choose not to transition. These are all things you are saying, not Bella. I'm not making up the fact that you label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife am I?

Answer this plainly.

Do you understand what tacit agreement is? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, please restate it so I know that you understand it.

Then, I will answer you by going through this entire thread and picking out every instance where you have agreed with something that Bella has stated, by defending it. Actually, no, I will pick out the first. THEN, YOU SHOW ME WHERE YOU HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY DISAGREED WITH HER. That is fair.

[GroobyKrissy]

Don't label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife and I wont think you CD/TV. Don't mention you choose not to transition and I wont ask you why you choose not to transition. These are all things you are saying, not Bella. I'm not making up the fact that you label yourself CD/TV on Fetlife am I?

GOOD GRIEF. I kinda had hope for you. I kinda thought you may be someone who is reasonable.

Like I said, when in discussions like this, this is what it always comes down to. "You're CD so shut up." Nice.

Do you NOT understand the concept of marketing? Social Media Profiles, Websites, Google + pages... it is MARKETING. I market my site TO THOSE who are my largest audience. I know this is my largest audience because I have done the research.

If my largest audience was "Guys who love using peanut butter as hair gel" guess what all my profiles would say... "I love using peanut butter as hair gel." Is this concept of marketing yourself really that difficult to grasp?

[broncofan]

You are taking something I said to Fivekatz out of context;



My statement was said to inform fivekatz that tv/cd don't transition at all because they don't want to transition from male to female permanently they just want to occasionally wear the clothes of the opposite sex, that is not the same as transitioning or a transsexual. No transsexual would identify as a man that is CD/TV, they would identify as TS/female that just can't (for whatever reason) transition at that particular moment. There are exceptions to that rule of course because in life there are no absolutes, as has Krissy has pointed out, she labels herself as CD/TV on some sites because it helps her marketing, but she identifies as TS/female.

Even accounting for the context, by saying that transsexuals transition, you are saying this is a necessary, indispensable property of being transsexual. You may not have meant that, but that's what the clause, "transsexuals transition from one sex to another" means.

You also said, "we transwomen are dealing with all the factors of living the life of a woman 24/7". This strongly implies that living life as a woman 24/7 is required to be a transwoman. But now you say that you never said transitioning was required.

I can quote a bunch of times when you would say something fairly extreme and then contradict it. How about these statements?

"If he said he felt like he was born in the wrong body and felt he needed to transition than I would consider him transsexual"

Then when I pointed out you were agreeing with me.

"Well let's be clear on this, TV and CD do not ever ALWAYS identify as female"

You also assured me of two things. You were not using the word identify in the second statement to mean "present oneself as" or "dress as", and you were not using a circular definition of tv and cd that precluded transsexuality.

The only explanation for these posts is that you were agreeing with Bella but only for convenience. When Krissy returned, so did your conscience, if not your honesty. C'est la vie.

[GroobyKrissy]

At the end of the day, as I stated, I thought you were CD because of the use of the term on your site (which you perfectly explained and I accept) not because of anything Bella said. I said I "don't support whatever Bella is getting at" that ultimately is on you to feel that that is not enough disagreement, you are clearly looking for people to take sides and it has to be either yours or Bella's, but I'm my own individual person and have my own thoughts on matters that I can choose to or not to speak upon as I see fit. It really seems like no matter how I would have worded it you still would have felt I was only saying it because of Bella. It popped into my head because YOU said "I have CHOSEN (I actually have the financial capability to do so) NOT to actually transition at this point in life" I thought it was awesome that you wanted to transition at all, I had no idea you wanted to transition because on your Fetlife page you choose to label yourself not as MtF but as CD/TV. If you feel that for marketing purposes its better to label yourself CD/TV even though you are MtF on social networks that's fine, get that money girl.

So, do you agree or disagree that when someone writes:

"I don't want to be a jerk but... your face looks like pizza."

...they are actually making a very nice, cordial statement about a person's beauty? I think most reasonable people see it as, "being a jerk".

Do you REALLY not see that you did just that?

If I said,

Remy... I don't want to be a jerk but... your photography skills are absolute garbage (and no, I don't actually believe this just to be clear).

You wouldn't take that as a "personal" attack? Really? Intellectual honesty?

[GroobyKrissy]

Define transition; moving, changing from one state of being to another.

THIS is your definition of "transition" within the context of this discussion? Let me tell you... MOST "academic" TS would slaughter that definition as too broad. Even I, who have a pretty lenient definition (i.e. - you don't have to) would say that is so generic as to be unusable in any real context.

By this stated definition, as long as one HAS EVEN THOUGHT about it (transitioning), that is, put forth a plan in his/her mind, they are "transitioning" because they have started that process of "moving," "changing from one state of being to another". That is to say, all actions begin with a thought.

Do you see what I mean by YOU MUST THINK THINGS THROUGH... and take RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU WRITE? I'll give you a mulligan on this one to restate it... unless this is truly what you actually believe... in which case, fair enough and that is the definition of "transition" that I will refer to when speaking with you.

But trust me, if that is your definition, you have really no ability to speak on other person's "transitional" status AT ALL.