just wondering how you ladies shave your legs?

[jwb1384]

hi all i am a 35 year old cd and i finally shaved my legs and now have no body hair!!!! it took me almost an hour, YIKES! i was hoping somebody might have some advice because i am hoping this does not take so long everytime. because i am hooked!!! i love the smoothness of my shapely legs, i couldn't wait to slip into my stockings, garter belt, white stilettos, and sissy satin panties.....too bad i have to play alone! any advice, greatly appreciated, now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!

[HeavenlySin]

sick

[MacShreach]

sick

Yup, that's exactly what I was thinking.

[alyssats]

I prefer wax and also do laser hair removal the best(Diode or Cool Glyde). Shave so itchy once growing

[JeniferTS]

sick

How would YOU like being called "sick" for what it is you enjoy doing or wearing??? Or maybe you consider this person "sick" because they are a CD since you didn't make it clear as to why this individual is "sick".

[Ryz]

cut ur skin off

[SXFX]

sick
Being good looking does not give you the right to be mean.
This shit may fly at a bar, where most guys will forgive a good looking girl no matter what she says or does, but here and now.
I highly suggest you respect your self and others and do your up most to stay civil and proper.
Thank you!


Ok back on topic.
That European Hair Eraser thing...the thing they are selling for $19.95.
Well at the NYC auto show on the second floor there was a booth with those.
And one of the girls selling said she could remove the hair off my arm with out me even knowing.......so this I had to see! In 10 seconds my left forearm was fuzzless! I couldn't believe it! I wanted to buy it for my head! (I have a shaved head) but she said it wasn't designed for that. Taking a closer look it's basicly 1,000 grit sand paper and it did a hell of a good job.
My arm was fuzzless for a week!

[sockmonkey]

hi all i am a 35 year old cd and i finally shaved my legs and now have no body hair!!!!



That's... horrifying.

[MacShreach]

sick
Being good looking does not give you the right to be mean.
This shit may fly at a bar, where most guys will forgive a good looking girl no matter what she says or does, but here and now.
I highly suggest you respect your self and others and do your up most to stay civil and proper.
Thank you!


Like to say that to me, you great fairy?

I highly suggest you crawl off under a stone with your crossdressing MEN friends and fucking well stay there.

Fuck off with your "civil and proper," you're an established freak who lusts after men in women's clothing.

[MacShreach]

hi all i am a 35 year old cd and i finally shaved my legs and now have no body hair!!!!



That's... horrifying.

Exactly.

:claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps :claps

[Tanuki]

PIGFLU

[dgs925]

sick
Being good looking does not give you the right to be mean.
This shit may fly at a bar, where most guys will forgive a good looking girl no matter what she says or does, but here and now.
I highly suggest you respect your self and others and do your up most to stay civil and proper.
Thank you!


Like to say that to me, you great fairy?

I highly suggest you crawl off under a stone with your crossdressing MEN friends and fucking well stay there.

Fuck off with your "civil and proper," you're an established freak who lusts after men in women's clothing.

Fuck you, pansy ass internet tough guy. You are just as much a faggot as the rest of us, the only difference is you can't admit it to yourself.

You keep sticking your opinion where it doesn't belong. I don't give a shit what your opinion on crossdressers is. There are a lot of people on this board who appreciate that shit so fuck off!

But whatever, the tone around this place just can't not be homophobic. To the original poster, I'm sure there are more civil discussion forums on the web which would cater to your specific needs. This is a porn forum which gets a lot of traffic from guys who are really uncomfortable with the fact that they like chicks with dicks (this is where we point out that we are really attracted to them just because of their femininity and in spite of their genitalia).

[sockmonkey]

Fuck you, pansy ass internet tough guy. You are just as much a faggot as the rest of us, the only difference is you can't admit it to yourself.

You keep sticking your opinion where it doesn't belong. I don't give a shit what your opinion on crossdressers is. There are a lot of people on this board who appreciate that shit so fuck off!

But whatever, the tone around this place just can't not be homophobic. To the original poster, I'm sure there are more civil discussion forums on the web which would cater to your specific needs. This is a porn forum which gets a lot of traffic from guys who are really uncomfortable with the fact that they like chicks with dicks (this is where we point out that we are really attracted to them just because of their femininity and in spite of their genitalia).


I'm sorry, where exactly does it specifically state that this forum caters to men who want to remain men and dress in women's clothing? Seems to me that anything relating to that is blatantly off-topic and subject to derision. The original poster is free to post whatever he wants; there's nothing specifically stating he can't talk about such things, but who are you to try to curb others' opinions? It's a public forum: what you say is subject to the opinions of others, valid or not.

From what I gather, a good portion of the ladies here aren't particularly keen on crossdressers; why don't you flame them a bit.

[hippifried]

A weed eater & blow torch will do wonders on body hair.

[SXFX]

Oh how we willingly and with great glee dive into the deep end of uncivil discourse.

[NYBURBS]

I'm sorry, where exactly does it specifically state that this forum caters to men who want to remain men and dress in women's clothing? Seems to me that anything relating to that is blatantly off-topic and subject to derision. The original poster is free to post whatever he wants; there's nothing specifically stating he can't talk about such things, but who are you to try to curb others' opinions? It's a public forum: what you say is subject to the opinions of others, valid or not.

From what I gather, a good portion of the ladies here aren't particularly keen on crossdressers; why don't you flame them a bit.

Basically it's a matter of being tolerant and civil to one another. You're right that people are free to post what they will (subject to any rules of the site admin), but it really is sad imo that people feel the need to viciously attack one other.

All the OP was asking about were tips on shaving his legs; if he chooses to crossdress then that should be of no significant consequence to anyone else. Everyone on this site would be rejected or ridiculed by certain other social groups, and no one here would be considered in the "mainstream" of current sexual acceptance. With that in mind people should strive to be a bit more accepting of one another on this forum.

The only reason to lash out at people in a thread like this is because one is uncomfortable with their own sexual identity or preference, just like in high school where some "oddball" kids would pick on other kids who were not accepted by the majority, all in an attempt to try and differentiate themselves. Grow up folks, we're all human beings and a little compassion and tolerance go a long way.

[MacShreach]

fuck off!



Fuck off yourself, Nancy. Yah sucks boo to you too.



we are really attracted to them just because of their femininity and in spite of their genitalia.

Well, you're just attracted to penises, so it fuddles your thinking; but if you are able to clear your mind a moment, would you like to tell us what your honest opinion of Post-Op women is?

[MacShreach]

I'm sorry, where exactly does it specifically state that this forum caters to men who want to remain men and dress in women's clothing? Seems to me that anything relating to that is blatantly off-topic and subject to derision. The original poster is free to post whatever he wants; there's nothing specifically stating he can't talk about such things, but who are you to try to curb others' opinions? It's a public forum: what you say is subject to the opinions of others, valid or not.

From what I gather, a good portion of the ladies here aren't particularly keen on crossdressers; why don't you flame them a bit.

Basically it's a matter of being tolerant and civil to one another. You're right that people are free to post what they will (subject to any rules of the site admin), but it really is sad imo that people feel the need to viciously attack one other.

All the OP was asking about were tips on shaving his legs; if he chooses to crossdress then that should be of no significant consequence to anyone else. Everyone on this site would be rejected or ridiculed by certain other social groups, and no one here would be considered in the "mainstream" of current sexual acceptance. With that in mind people should strive to be a bit more accepting of one another on this forum.

The only reason to lash out at people in a thread like this is because one is uncomfortable with their own sexual identity or preference, just like in high school where some "oddball" kids would pick on other kids who were not accepted by the majority, all in an attempt to try and differentiate themselves. Grow up folks, we're all human beings and a little compassion and tolerance go a long way.

Are you seriously telling me that you consider that a transsexual woman, which is what some of us are interested in, is the same as a man who dresses up in frilly panties and shaves his legs to wank off? Are you really saying that?

Because that is EXACTLY what SXFX and his fellow-travellers are saying. Are you one off them?

Transsexual women already have enough problems that arise from the false association with crossdressing men, whether that be by the uninformed on this and other boards, or pseudoscientists like Blanchard. I think transsexual women deserve the tiny amount of support I try to give them, and while I have heard a great number of homosexual men, crossdressing men, transvestite men, not to mention their admirers, squealing about that, I have not heard a transsexual woman tell me to stop. Now I'm not saying I would even if they did, but I'm certainly not about to be persuaded by a bunch of guys, whether they squeak and squeal, come over all tough as Petal, (Ooooh, ouch,) or couch their criticism in what seem at first glance, reasonable terms.

There is a difference between men who dress up in women's clothing and transsexual women, despite the determined efforts of many people here to pretend that there is not, for their own interests and to the detriment of women. Thankfully, this forum, unlike some, allows free debate, and that in turn allows some of us to point out that difference.

And before anyone starts up the old "all had to start somewhere" pianola, yes, actually, I do realise that. But there have been several transsexual women who have appeared on this and other boards like it early in their transition, and I invite you to take a look at the tone of their posts and that of the OP here, and THEN tell me we're talking about the same thing.

Sorry, NYBURBS, you seem like a reasonable guy, but we're not going to agree on this one.

[NYBURBS]

Are you seriously telling me that you consider that a transsexual woman, which is what some of us are interested in, is the same as a man who dresses up in frilly panties and shaves his legs to wank off? Are you really saying that?

Because that is EXACTLY what SXFX and his fellow-travellers are saying. Are you one off them?

Transsexual women already have enough problems that arise from the false association with crossdressing men, whether that be by the uninformed on this and other boards, or pseudoscientists like Blanchard. I think transsexual women deserve the tiny amount of support I try to give them, and while I have heard a great number of homosexual men, crossdressing men, transvestite men, not to mention their admirers, squealing about that, I have not heard a transsexual woman tell me to stop. Now I'm not saying I would even if they did, but I'm certainly not about to be persuaded by a bunch of guys, whether they squeak and squeal, come over all tough as Petal, (Ooooh, ouch,) or couch their criticism in what seem at first glance, reasonable terms.

There is a difference between men who dress up in women's clothing and transsexual women, despite the determined efforts of many people here to pretend that there is not, for their own interests and to the detriment of women. Thankfully, this forum, unlike some, allows free debate, and that in turn allows some of us to point out that difference.

And before anyone starts up the old "all had to start somewhere" pianola, yes, actually, I do realise that. But there have been several transsexual women who have appeared on this and other boards like it early in their transition, and I invite you to take a look at the tone of their posts and that of the OP here, and THEN tell me we're talking about the same thing.

Sorry, NYBURBS, you seem like a reasonable guy, but we're not going to agree on this one.

For me it's not about trying to classify who is what, it's simply a matter of being decent and civil to one another. What difference does it make if he's a male that wears woman's clothing, or a male looking to transition to female? He's not hurting anyone by his conduct, nor is he asking you to sleep with him.

This whole thread started as a question about how to best shave his body hair, and immediately was derailed by angry comments. All I am saying is that if one wants to receive tolerance and respect from others then they must also be willing to give the same out. In other words do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I'm not trying to bash anyone here, rather I'm simply attempting to appeal to your better side.

[MacShreach]

What difference does it make if he's a male that wears woman's clothing, or a male looking to transition to female?

I'm not going over the ground again, but that's my point-- it makes a very great difference indeed.




I'm not trying to bash anyone here, rather I'm simply attempting to appeal to your better side.

LOL at least you realise I have one. But seriously, I don't see the word "crossdresser" up there ^^. The OP identified himself as a crossdressing man from the off, so as someone pointed out, the OP is OT, really.

I'm not saying that crossdressing men do not have problems to deal with. I am saying that the continual attempt to fudge the very clear distinction between CD/TV MEN and transsexual WOMEN is demeaning and ultimately injurious to the WOMEN.

[NYBURBS]

I'm not saying that crossdressing men do not have problems to deal with. I am saying that the continual attempt to fudge the very clear distinction between CD/TV MEN and transsexual WOMEN is demeaning and ultimately injurious to the WOMEN.

Right and what I'm saying is that continued efforts to draw bright distinctions among people is actually more injurious in the long term. Reread the original post and highlight for me where his question was potentially injurious to MTF TS.

I'd also note that you capitalize the word women in an effort to add emphasis to the distinction between MTF TS and cd/tv. Yet even after SRS a MTF TS is not a genetic woman. However, I don't feel a need to use that fact to deride or ridicule transsexual women or to label them as being less than anyone else. They are human beings that are asking to be accepted for the person they perceive themselves to be, and they should be afforded the same respect given to anyone else. Just as the OP should be afforded similar courtesy for his choice to live his life a particular manner.

Running around pointing fingers and exclaiming who is a real woman, who are real men, who is straight, and who is gay serves no purpose but to foster hostility among everyone. The point is that we all experience many of the same emotions, feelings, and desires; act with respect for one another's personal choices and leave it at that.

[LibertyHarkness]

If your going to shave your legs I would advise using a Mach3 and some nice Gel (gillete fusion one is nice) do it in a hot bath as well to open the pores up...

Now dont forget to exfoliate your legs after shaving as well...personally your better off with moving to waxing in my opionon until laser can be afforded :)

Exfoliation is key on shaving as it stops the ingrowing hairs..

[2009AD]

I'm not saying that crossdressing men do not have problems to deal with. I am saying that the continual attempt to fudge the very clear distinction between CD/TV MEN and transsexual WOMEN is demeaning and ultimately injurious to the WOMEN.

Right and what I'm saying is that continued efforts to draw bright distinctions among people is actually more injurious in the long term. Reread the original post and highlight for me where his question was potentially injurious to MTF TS.

I'd also note that you capitalize the word women in an effort to add emphasis to the distinction between MTF TS and cd/tv. Yet even after SRS a MTF TS is not a genetic woman. However, I don't feel a need to use that fact to deride or ridicule transsexual women or to label them as being less than anyone else. They are human beings that are asking to be accepted for the person they perceive themselves to be, and they should be afforded the same respect given to anyone else. Just as the OP should be afforded similar courtesy for his choice to live his life a particular manner.

Running around pointing fingers and exclaiming who is a real woman, who are real men, who is straight, and who is gay serves no purpose but to foster hostility among everyone. The point is that we all experience many of the same emotions, feelings, and desires; act with respect for one another's personal choices and leave it at that.

I gotta go with NYBURBS on this one. The OP simply asked a question about shaving. Yes, maybe he did give a little too much information, but he did not try to convert anyone. There are other CDs who post on HA. The OP was not trying to insult anyone. The negative reaction is a bit shocking. Let him do his thing.

[Clind]

I'm sorry, where exactly does it specifically state that this forum caters to men who want to remain men and dress in women's clothing? Seems to me that anything relating to that is blatantly off-topic and subject to derision. The original poster is free to post whatever he wants; there's nothing specifically stating he can't talk about such things, but who are you to try to curb others' opinions? It's a public forum: what you say is subject to the opinions of others, valid or not.

From what I gather, a good portion of the ladies here aren't particularly keen on crossdressers; why don't you flame them a bit.

Basically it's a matter of being tolerant and civil to one another. You're right that people are free to post what they will (subject to any rules of the site admin), but it really is sad imo that people feel the need to viciously attack one other.

All the OP was asking about were tips on shaving his legs; if he chooses to crossdress then that should be of no significant consequence to anyone else. Everyone on this site would be rejected or ridiculed by certain other social groups, and no one here would be considered in the "mainstream" of current sexual acceptance. With that in mind people should strive to be a bit more accepting of one another on this forum.

The only reason to lash out at people in a thread like this is because one is uncomfortable with their own sexual identity or preference, just like in high school where some "oddball" kids would pick on other kids who were not accepted by the majority, all in an attempt to try and differentiate themselves. Grow up folks, we're all human beings and a little compassion and tolerance go a long way.

Are you seriously telling me that you consider that a transsexual woman, which is what some of us are interested in, is the same as a man who dresses up in frilly panties and shaves his legs to wank off? Are you really saying that?

Because that is EXACTLY what SXFX and his fellow-travellers are saying. Are you one off them?

Transsexual women already have enough problems that arise from the false association with crossdressing men, whether that be by the uninformed on this and other boards, or pseudoscientists like Blanchard. I think transsexual women deserve the tiny amount of support I try to give them, and while I have heard a great number of homosexual men, crossdressing men, transvestite men, not to mention their admirers, squealing about that, I have not heard a transsexual woman tell me to stop. Now I'm not saying I would even if they did, but I'm certainly not about to be persuaded by a bunch of guys, whether they squeak and squeal, come over all tough as Petal, (Ooooh, ouch,) or couch their criticism in what seem at first glance, reasonable terms.

There is a difference between men who dress up in women's clothing and transsexual women, despite the determined efforts of many people here to pretend that there is not, for their own interests and to the detriment of women. Thankfully, this forum, unlike some, allows free debate, and that in turn allows some of us to point out that difference.

And before anyone starts up the old "all had to start somewhere" pianola, yes, actually, I do realise that. But there have been several transsexual women who have appeared on this and other boards like it early in their transition, and I invite you to take a look at the tone of their posts and that of the OP here, and THEN tell me we're talking about the same thing.

Sorry, NYBURBS, you seem like a reasonable guy, but we're not going to agree on this one.

MacSchit , do you have some mental problem or something??

[MacShreach]

MacSchit , do you have some mental problem or something??

No, but judging from your input on the moon landing thread, you might. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MacShreach]

I'm not saying that crossdressing men do not have problems to deal with. I am saying that the continual attempt to fudge the very clear distinction between CD/TV MEN and transsexual WOMEN is demeaning and ultimately injurious to the WOMEN.

Right and what I'm saying is that continued efforts to draw bright distinctions among people is actually more injurious in the long term.




I disagree. I told you we were not going to. Failing to draw appropriate distinctions does indeed cause harm. The world is not all touchy-feely.




Reread the original post and highlight for me where his question was potentially injurious to MTF TS.



Reread the thread and tell me exactly where I addressed ONE word to the OP. I just backed up a woman's opinion, and then responded to a well-known chaser of men in skirts, SXFX.




I'd also note that you capitalize the word women in an effort to add emphasis to the distinction between MTF TS and cd/tv.



A real distinction which does exist, however much you might not want it to.






Yet even after SRS a MTF TS is not a genetic woman.



If you mean that a woman after GRS is still has an XY karotype, that is true; but it is something she has in common with women who have other intersexed conditions, for example AIS, or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, yet these women have always been reqarded as women, albeit infertile.

What you are doing is drawing an unfair distinction between two classes of women; those who have XX and those who have XY karotypes. This is unfair because we already regard many women as women who have this karotype. You are, in fact, perilously close to representing transsexual women as men with a disorder, rather than as women with a birth defect. This puts you in bed with Blanchard and Bailey, is completely at odds with current medical thinking, and is certainly not something I am going to agree with.





However, I don't feel a need to use that fact to deride or ridicule transsexual women or to label them as being less than anyone else.


Don't, please, insult my intelligence-- that is exactly what you just DID. You clearly stated that as far as you are concerned, transsexual women are genetic men.



Running around pointing fingers and exclaiming who is a real woman, who are real men, who is straight, and who is gay serves no purpose but to foster hostility among everyone.



I don't give a damn whether someone is gay or straight, but I will repeat, and this is for the last time, that I am not going to stop pointing out distinctions or lack thereof, that are injurious to one group of women, because it might hurt the feelings of some MEN.

If you don't like this, killfile me.

[AmyDaly]

I typically shave my legs with a RAZOR. Sometimes, I use a rock, but most of the times I use a RAZOR.



you noob

[MacShreach]

The negative reaction is a bit shocking. Let him do his thing.

I have not responded to the OP at all.

I do not wish to prevent him from wearing women's clothing and shaving his legs to have a wank either, but, since you think my response shocking, I will clarify that I find his way of expressing his delight in this in the OP, and his reference to his own sexual apparatus, sick as fuck, actually. And if he asks me to repeat that to his face I will.

My responses have been mainly to the loathsome chaser of men in skirts "SXFX" and, in a more considered manner, NYBURBS.

[jwb1384]

Well first of all I am genuinely surprised at how much attention this post has received, especially all the negative feedback. To those of you who have offered positive comments and advice, thank you very much! Too those of you who consider my conduct "sick" I would like to state that one's personal fullfillment and pleasures should not come under the judgement of some who obviously are on here to simply cause conflict and dramatize a very innocent and harmless post.

By the way MacSearch, I live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida anytime you want to confront me I would be happy to dust off my Gold Glove boxing skills.

Thanks again to Liberty, Amy, SXFX and others for your advice and understanding....best wishes to you!

[MacShreach]

I live in Fort Lauderdale, Florida anytime you want to confront me I would be happy to dust off my Gold Glove boxing skills.



Well, you get yourself to Loch Ness and turn right.

[dgs925]

I'm sorry, where exactly does it specifically state that this forum caters to men who want to remain men and dress in women's clothing? Seems to me that anything relating to that is blatantly off-topic and subject to derision. The original poster is free to post whatever he wants; there's nothing specifically stating he can't talk about such things, but who are you to try to curb others' opinions? It's a public forum: what you say is subject to the opinions of others, valid or not.

From what I gather, a good portion of the ladies here aren't particularly keen on crossdressers; why don't you flame them a bit.

Basically it's a matter of being tolerant and civil to one another. You're right that people are free to post what they will (subject to any rules of the site admin), but it really is sad imo that people feel the need to viciously attack one other.

All the OP was asking about were tips on shaving his legs; if he chooses to crossdress then that should be of no significant consequence to anyone else. Everyone on this site would be rejected or ridiculed by certain other social groups, and no one here would be considered in the "mainstream" of current sexual acceptance. With that in mind people should strive to be a bit more accepting of one another on this forum.

The only reason to lash out at people in a thread like this is because one is uncomfortable with their own sexual identity or preference, just like in high school where some "oddball" kids would pick on other kids who were not accepted by the majority, all in an attempt to try and differentiate themselves. Grow up folks, we're all human beings and a little compassion and tolerance go a long way.

Thanks for saying things so nicely and civilly. I just wish these closet cases could keep their opinions to themselves. There are lots of girls who post on this site, or others post their pics, who I don't find attractive - some of them I find nasty. So you know what I do when a thread comes around dedicated to them?

I don't say shit.


, I will clarify that I find his way of expressing his delight in this in the OP, and his reference to his own sexual apparatus, sick as fuck, actually. And if he asks me to repeat that to his face I will.

My responses have been mainly to the loathsome chaser of men in skirts

Mac - why so homophobic? Why is crossdressing sick?

Cross-dressers and part-timers are most certainly not off-topic on this site, as there are plenty of threads dedicated to them and plenty of non-full-time posters here. You seem like the type of bigoted asshole who doesn't listen to other people, so I will refrain from being civil with you in the future and just tell you to suck my dick.

[irvin66]

PIGFLU

Swineflu!

[MacShreach]

I will refrain from being civil with you in the future

Oh, I wouldn't fret about that, and what I "seem" like to you, petal, is a long way from making me lose any sleep. You want to suck off crossdressing men, carry on, don't let me stand in your way.

[MacShreach]

Mac - why so homophobic?



I really don't know why I bother, but just for the record, AGAIN, I'm not. I just have principles.


Why is crossdressing sick?



It's not. Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather not know about it, but it doesn't affect me.

Writing this, however,

" i couldn't wait to slip into my stockings, garter belt, white stilettos, and sissy satin panties.....too bad i have to play alone! any advice, greatly appreciated, now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!"

is, IMO, pretty damn icky. (Understatement)

THAT is what I was agreeing with Heavenly Sin about.

Finally I would like to remind you, and the others who can't read, that I have exchanged ONE post with the OP, late in the proceedings, which was reasonably good-natured. The argument was between the reptilian SXFX and I, and there was also an intelligent debate between NYBURBS and I which we appeared to agree to disagree on.

Now I don't care if I fuck you off. I fuck plenty of people off. So fuck off.

[dgs925]

Now I don't care if I fuck you off. I fuck plenty of people off. So fuck off.

is that a phrase where you come from? I'm going to assume it has the same meaning as "piss you off". Of course you piss off a lot of people, you are a rude prick.

And from the way you treat other posters here, you are most certainly homophobic. Do me a favor and look up the definition. I wouldn't have a problem with your homophobic opinions, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you keep sticking them where they aren't appreciated.

[Tanuki]

[quote=dgs925]

Mac - why so homophobic?



I really don't know why I bother, but just for the record, AGAIN, I'm not. I just have principles.


Why is crossdressing sick?



It's not. Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather not know about it, but it doesn't affect me.

Writing this, however,

" i couldn't wait to slip into my stockings, garter belt, white stilettos, and sissy satin panties.....too bad i have to play alone! any advice, greatly appreciated, now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!"

is, IMO, pretty damn icky. (Understatement)

THAT is what I was agreeing with Heavenly Sin about.


That about sums it up.. its pretty obvious what is gross about it.. sorry dude. part of the reality of posting is that people have to read it.

[MacShreach]

That about sums it up.. its pretty obvious what is gross about it.. sorry dude. part of the reality of posting is that people have to read it.

Thank you, Tanuki.

And you are right-- there are plenty of people here who don't bother reading.

[MacShreach]

but you keep sticking them where they aren't appreciated.

Sorry, what what you actually mean is, "you don't like them." Tough titty. Ignore me.



:shrug

[dgs925]

but you keep sticking them where they aren't appreciated.

Sorry, what what you actually mean is, "you don't like them." Tough titty. Ignore me.



:shrug

Whatever, we disagree. But if I'm reading a thread and some poster mentions a girl's cock, at which point you degrade them I'll continue to call you out as a homophobic hypocrite.

[MacShreach]

but you keep sticking them where they aren't appreciated.

Sorry, what what you actually mean is, "you don't like them." Tough titty. Ignore me.



:shrugI could ignore you if I chose, that's the thing to do with trolls but I hadn't decided you were a troll yet. I think you are just misguided and unsure of your own sexuality, so I am trying to help you with that.

That's quite all right, Petal, I'll look after my own sexuality. You tend to your close reading and comprehension skills, that will be more useful in the long run.

[MacShreach]

but you keep sticking them where they aren't appreciated.

Sorry, what what you actually mean is, "you don't like them." Tough titty. Ignore me.



:shrug

Whatever, we disagree. But if I'm reading a thread and some poster mentions a girl's cock, at which point you degrade them I'll continue to call you out as a homophobic hypocrite.

WAY TO EDIT YOUR POST, PETAL!!!!!!!

Lest we forget, this is what he said first time round:-




I could ignore you if I chose, that's the thing to do with trolls but I hadn't decided you were a troll yet. I think you are just misguided and unsure of your own sexuality, so I am trying to help you with that.



Uuuuuh...Loser!! You don't even have the guts to stick by what you wrote ten minutes ago!

Jeez, you don't have to work hard with some of the guys round here, you really don't.

Tell you what, pet, you just call me out any time you like. That's okay. You run along and play now.

[MacShreach]

Oh, and by the way, you did ask for that to go, didn't you?

[dan_drade]

Try laser hair removal. I heard that is really the only way and it is semi permanent. If you are serious, there is always HRT and androgen blockers. Who knows, maybe you would be a sexy lady.

[NYBURBS]

Yet even after SRS a MTF TS is not a genetic woman.


If you mean that a woman after GRS is still has an XY karotype, that is true; but it is something she has in common with women who have other intersexed conditions, for example AIS, or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, yet these women have always been reqarded as women, albeit infertile.

What you are doing is drawing an unfair distinction between two classes of women; those who have XX and those who have XY karotypes. This is unfair because we already regard many women as women who have this karotype. You are, in fact, perilously close to representing transsexual women as men with a disorder, rather than as women with a birth defect. This puts you in bed with Blanchard and Bailey, is completely at odds with current medical thinking, and is certainly not something I am going to agree with.


What I did is exactly what you are doing. I took the time to point out differences among people. It's not something I normally do, because I'm not in the business of trying to hurt people's feelings or attempt to make them feel like they are worth less than anyone else.

However, you're intelligent enough to know that your argument is a stretch. No matter how much you argue against it, the fact of the matter is that after SRS a MTF TS does not have many of the basic biological organs and functions of a GG. So there is a big bright distinction there guy, and if girls like heavenlysin want to be accepted as women without all the added caveats then they need to start showing some tolerance. Because the world is filled with people that want to make the argument against accepting them, and it certainly doesn't help the cause if they're out bashing others for being "sick".

[SarahG]

To be fair to the person who started this thread with the OP, this site is not geared towards TV's, but there certainly have been a LOT of tv posters here (usually with low post counts, my observation is they are more often lurkers than frequent posters), and one cannot dismiss that a lot of the guys here are interested in TV's (perhaps even moreso than tgirls). I'm not even talking about the club kids thread- go look at the TV picture threads and you'll see how many hundreds of pages of posts there are there, and hundreds of thousands of thread views.

What confuses me is why this thread has so much drama over an original post that does not deviate from the dozens to hundreds of threads started by tv's on here over the years. So someone thought the first post was "sick." Is that really that big of a deal or unusual? :?:

That said there are a few very important distinctions that need to be drawn here.



Right and what I'm saying is that continued efforts to draw bright distinctions among people is actually more injurious in the long term.


I have to say I disagree with this. It would be EXTREMELY easy to show that the grouping of TVs and TS people together as one "big TG community" has been extremely harmful for ts people, and may even be harmful to both groups.

The biggest problem I have in grouping L, G, B, TV, and TS people together is that these groups are all notably different from each other, to the point that one could claim that the only thing that collection of demographics has in common are the people who would want to hurt them. And really, that's a crappy logic for blurring terms & definitions.

There is a reason why groups, people, and institutions that want to proliferate transphobia do so through trying to blur the lines between TV's and TS people. All they have to do is start showing examples of TV's engaging in sexually deviant behavior, especially if it is in public. women's restrooms, or somehow involves small children, and claim that "all TG's are 40 year old ex-NHL players who put on hose to jerk off."

Conservative newspapers and politicians INTENTIONALLY use the term "transvestite" in talking about ALL tg people, even TS people, because they WANT TS people to be viewed as sexual deviants, and the only effective way to do that is to harp on the TV's that publicize their fetishes (i.e. masturbating in public, flashing children, wearing fetishized clothing in public, etc.).

The sad reality is that the general public is excessively prudish more often than not, and is not educated enough to know the difference between a TV and a TS person. This is further fueled by sensationalized newspaper stories, and the fact that TV's outnumber TS people several fold. To someone in the general public, it doesn't matter whether a trans person they see engaging in sexually deviant behavior is really a TV, they'll simply assume that it is reflective of the ENTIRE tg community, TS people included. They don't know any better, and even if they did- with so many newspapers, politicians, and religious factions claiming the opposite- it is extremly harmful.

Two cases in point of recent:

1- Recently in New Hampshire there was a legislative attempt to expand their anti-discrimination laws to protect trans citizens. This was actually moving forward quite smoothly, at first. New Hampshire is an on/off red state, but has had discrimination law on the books to protect LGB people for quite a while, but as usually the case when the LGBT group gets stuff done- the trans people were thrown under the bus. So this year, the state legislators tried to fix the oversight by expanding the law to include the prohibition of discrimination based on "gender identity." What happened? The republican state legislators went to the media and said "if we do this, all these crossdressors, and transvestites will be able to go into female restrooms at will, where they can do who knows what sexually deviant behavior in front of women and little girls." That killed the bill right then and there, all the momentum simply evaporated and after that argument was made it didn't stand a chance. In this way, NH is not an abnormality: time & time again, whenever the issue of gender identity or gender expression discrimination law comes up (be it the city, state, or federal level), this fear of "sexually deviant TV's" shoots down the proposals (more often than not anyway).



2- Right now the DSM5 is being written, Clarke Institute's Blanchard was selected as head of the committee that will be rewriting the trans related sections of the DSM. Once this is done, whatever they decide to put in the book will be the rule of the land for a good 10-25 years until the DSM6 is written. This will influence insurance coverage, this will influence the legal system- everything everyone who is TG does in our system will be impacted by the wording of this DSM5. They've already released what the preliminary wording will be for the transvestite category.

The plan, as the public knows it of this date, is that the DSM5 will still contain transvestite fetishism, but it will be relabeled transvestite disorder. The plan, as the public knows it of this date, is to SCRAP the "gender dysphoria" subcatagory/marker of transvestite fetishism, and replace it with Autogynephilia. The definition of transvestite disorder, as it is currently proposed will be two parts- the patient must have had their urges for more than 6 months, and the patient's fantasies cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational function.

Significance? This means that it is now impossible for a TV to get a diagnosis that recognizes if they have "gender issues/dysphoria," thus all TV's are sexually deviant patients with fantasies that cause social stigmatization. It doesn't matter whether or not the TV patient has psychological duress, all that matters is whether or not their sexual urges risk social problems (like being divorced upon discovery from their spouse, being fired after being outted at work, scaring lil kids when trying to use the female restroom in public, etc.).

Word is not yet out on what they plan to do to the GID listing, but if we can take what they did to the TV listing as an indicator, my bet is that they'll try to list Autogynephilia as a sub-marker of GID. I do not disagree at face value with the removal of the gender dysphoria sub-marker from the TV listing, conventional wisdom for years has held that the difference between TVs and TSs are that TVs dress for sexual reasons (i.e. your 40 yo NHL player putting on hose to jerk off), whereas TS people risk gender dysphoria (laymens terms: ts people risk suffering from psychological duress if they do not transition, or do not transition early enough). What is surprisingly shortsighted, on Blanchard's part, are these Autogynephilia markers.

I have yet to see Autogynephilia adapted to apply to FtM TVs (yes they exist), all the writings I have seen on AG- from Bailey and others, has focused on MtF TVs. You'd think it would be obvious that the AG theory is kaput simply because there are no common FtM TV examples to draw upon. The theory is only partially supported, and that support (MtF tv's) can be explained away by reminding us all that a good deal of western female fashion is DESIGNED TO AROUSE MEN. Look at the stuff TV's talk about (for instance the many TV posts on HA) putting on to jerk off to, they're not dressing like lumberjack lesbians.

And before anyone says "yea but most TS people start off as CDs"

Guess what? CD is not a medical term. "Crossdressor" is not listed in the DSM because its a slang term that is medically/clinically, and legally speaking, absolutely worthless. Under current definitions, and terms- there are ONLY TVs and TS's. It is possible (but probably rare) to be both (I personally knew a FtM TS who was also a MtF TV, think about that mindfuck for a bit...), but overwhelmingly speaking it is impossible to (with a straight face) argue that "all ts girls started off by wearing female clothing to masturbate." That makes absolutely no sense, and the fallacy of that argument only further speaks to the fact that there are tangible differences between TV's and TS people.


On a final note, if gender identity and gender express protections had been granted in NH, even if the goal was strictly to protect TS people and TS people alone, it would have easily protected any TVs who face discrimination (for instance job discrimination after being outted).

[NYBURBS]

I have to say I disagree with this. It would be EXTREMELY easy to show that the grouping of TVs and TS people together as one "big TG community" has been extremely harmful for ts people, and may even be harmful to both groups.

The biggest problem I have in grouping L, G, B, TV, and TS people together is that these groups are all notably different from each other, to the point that one could claim that the only thing that collection of demographics has in common are the people who would want to hurt them. And really, that's a crappy logic for blurring terms & definitions.

There is a reason why groups, people, and institutions that want to proliferate transphobia do so through trying to blur the lines between TV's and TS people. All they have to do is start showing examples of TV's engaging in sexually deviant behavior, especially if it is in public. women's restrooms, or somehow involves small children, and claim that "all TG's are 40 year old ex-NHL players who put on hose to jerk off."

Conservative newspapers and politicians INTENTIONALLY use the term "transvestite" in talking about ALL tg people, even TS people, because they WANT TS people to be viewed as sexual deviants, and the only effective way to do that is to harp on the TV's that publicize their fetishes (i.e. masturbating in public, flashing children, wearing fetishized clothing in public, etc.).

The sad reality is that the general public is excessively prudish more often than not, and is not educated enough to know the difference between a TV and a TS person. This is further fueled by sensationalized newspaper stories, and the fact that TV's outnumber TS people several fold. To someone in the general public, it doesn't matter whether a trans person they see engaging in sexually deviant behavior is really a TV, they'll simply assume that it is reflective of the ENTIRE tg community, TS people included. They don't know any better, and even if they did- with so many newspapers, politicians, and religious factions claiming the opposite- it is extremly harmful.

Two cases in point of recent:

1- Recently in New Hampshire there was a legislative attempt to expand their anti-discrimination laws to protect trans citizens. This was actually moving forward quite smoothly, at first. New Hampshire is an on/off red state, but has had discrimination law on the books to protect LGB people for quite a while, but as usually the case when the LGBT group gets stuff done- the trans people were thrown under the bus. So this year, the state legislators tried to fix the oversight by expanding the law to include the prohibition of discrimination based on "gender identity." What happened? The republican state legislators went to the media and said "if we do this, all these crossdressors, and transvestites will be able to go into female restrooms at will, where they can do who knows what sexually deviant behavior in front of women and little girls." That killed the bill right then and there, all the momentum simply evaporated and after that argument was made it didn't stand a chance. In this way, NH is not an abnormality: time & time again, whenever the issue of gender identity or gender expression discrimination law comes up (be it the city, state, or federal level), this fear of "sexually deviant TV's" shoots down the proposals (more often than not anyway).


Sarah you're quite bright, but some of what you just wrote made me cringe. Deviant in a traditional legal term is any type of sex other than vaginal intercourse. To say that blurring the line between TS and TV in that sense has caused you harm is just as discriminatory as the reactions you have had to endure in your life. My whole point is that people should be left free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they are not attempting to harm others. When we try to add caveats and exceptions to that rule is when we start down a nasty path.

Are you going to tell me that there are not pre or post op TS that engage in certain public sex acts, or call attention to themselves? There are also plenty of "straight" men and women that engage in public sex acts. The issue should be the appropriateness of the location, not the sexuality of the person engaging in it.

Yes there are differences as to the reasons that drive people to only dress occasionally or to actually transition, and that is all fine and good. However, it should not cause us to view with disdain people that choose to act in a way that is not harmful to anyone else.

The point of my earlier post was that if I wanted to I could write an entire essay on the differences between a genetic female and a MTF transsexual, but that it is inappropriate imo because it is easier, and better, to simply treat people with basic dignity (i.e., accept that they perceive themselves as women, or accept that there are men they enjoy dressing in woman's clothing).

[SarahG]

My whole point is that people should be left free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they are not attempting to harm others.

I completely agree, but it's not about what you or I think, it's what the general public thinks that dictates reality. I don't personally consider tv's to be sexually deviant, nor would I suppose that all tvs "are 40 year old ex-nhl players putting on hose to jerk off."

Whether its right or wrong, our society views TVs, especially TVs who engage in sexual actions in public, to be sexually deviant. We could debate whether or not this is truly the case until the end of time, but that's not going to change the way the general public thinks (and fears).


Are you going to tell me that there are not pre or post op TS that engage in certain public sex acts, or call attention to themselves? There are also plenty of "straight" men and women that engage in public sex acts. The issue should be the appropriateness of the location, not the sexuality of the person engaging in it.

The issue is again what the general public thinks. Sure other groups engage in sexually deviant behavior, even publicly so. Sometimes it even makes it into the paper, but rarely is it used to paint their entire demographics the way our mass media tries to attribute the FEW tvs who do these things as reflective of the entire trans community. To think that people would often find the random odd sex stories involving straight people in the papers as reflective of the straight population is ludicrous. That would be like saying "the American public thinks most young white guys are criminals because a few of them are in urban gangs." Would anyone get that impression from watching the news/reading the paper? How often do we hear young white guys lamenting about being followed around whenever they go shopping in expensive stores?

What do you think the general public would feel about trans people, if almost all media coverage calls all trans people "transvestites" (regardless what they really are) and coverage typically consists of articles like the following:

http://www.lep.co.uk/weirdnews/Ban-me-baby-one-more.4768437.jp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT2UmZxzmjs



Yes there are differences as to the reasons that drive people to only dress occasionally or to actually transition, and that is all fine and good. However, it should not cause us to view with disdain people that choose to act in a way that is not harmful to anyone else.

Why do so many people insist on taking offense whenever someone points out that (at least some) tvs cross dress as a FETISH? Seriously, after the amount of odd things we've seen just on THIS board, "putting on hose to jerk off" is hardly what I would consider "far out there." As far as fetishes go, its pretty damn tame.

To say that it's not a fetish for some tvs seems to be grossly inaccurate, look at how many posters here have THEMSELVES stated that they put on female clothes to masturbate?


...because it is easier, and better, to simply treat people with basic dignity (i.e., accept that they perceive themselves as women, or accept that there are men they enjoy dressing in woman's clothing).

I agree but the general public isn't going to learn that any time soon. I have no problem with TVs, I have no problem with people who engage with sexual behavior in public (regardless how unusual that behavior may be).

What I do have a problem with, is arguing that TS and TV people are all "one in the same," or that "all TS people start out as TVs." Its easy to show a pattern of the former being used to prevent trans acceptance, and its easy to show the later is just blatantly incorrect. If putting on hose to jerk off is what blows someones skirt up (pun intended) go right ahead, I honestly could care less* but the point needs to be made that many people/groups intentionally try to blur TS/TV lines to make it appear that all trans people are sexually deviant or somehow fetishists.**




* To the OP, honestly I advise using an epilator. It will feel similar to getting a tattoo in some spots at first, but its far better (and cheaper long term) than waxing.As long as you do it every week +/-, you'll not even be able to feel it. Just use moisturizer afterwords or your skin may look like a plucked chicken for 24-40 hrs after epilating (depending on how sensitive your skin is). I wouldn't do it on full grown body hair, shave everything with a normal razor first and then epilate it as it grows back. You'd prolly not want to use it on pubes or facial hair, I'd imagine it would hurt.

** I shouldn't have to mention what the ramifications (even if limited in scope to the legal world) will be if the blurring of TV/TS people causes the idiots at the APA to list AG under GID. The IRS has already used AG theory to prevent postops from declaring SRS as a medical expense.

[RubyTS]

baaaahaaaaahahahaaaa

[MacShreach]

Yet even after SRS a MTF TS is not a genetic woman.


If you mean that a woman after GRS is still has an XY karotype, that is true; but it is something she has in common with women who have other intersexed conditions, for example AIS, or Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, yet these women have always been reqarded as women, albeit infertile.

What you are doing is drawing an unfair distinction between two classes of women; those who have XX and those who have XY karotypes. This is unfair because we already regard many women as women who have this karotype. You are, in fact, perilously close to representing transsexual women as men with a disorder, rather than as women with a birth defect. This puts you in bed with Blanchard and Bailey, is completely at odds with current medical thinking, and is certainly not something I am going to agree with.


What I did is exactly what you are doing. I took the time to point out differences among people. It's not something I normally do, because I'm not in the business of trying to hurt people's feelings or attempt to make them feel like they are worth less than anyone else.

However, you're intelligent enough to know that your argument is a stretch. No matter how much you argue against it, the fact of the matter is that after SRS a MTF TS does not have many of the basic biological organs and functions of a GG. So there is a big bright distinction there guy, and if girls like heavenlysin want to be accepted as women without all the added caveats then they need to start showing some tolerance. Because the world is filled with people that want to make the argument against accepting them, and it certainly doesn't help the cause if they're out bashing others for being "sick".

Since you either did not read the section of my post that you quoted or failed to understand it, I refer you to read it again, and if you still have difficulties, ask and I will explain again. In brief, we DO regard some women with XY karotypes, eg those with CAIS, as women with no reservations, and regard the fact that they are, for example, infertile due to lack of the correct organs, as problems of women, so to refuse this recognition to other women with XY karotypes and the same problems, is obviously discriminatory and unfair, and it is this discrimination, against transsexual women, that you are perpetuating. Transsexual women are women. It really is that simple, and you need to re-examine your stance on this.

Otherwise I refer to you Sarah's excellent and thorough analysis, which highlights the VERY REAL HARM that the conflation of CD/TV men and TS women does to TS women, which I think I mentioned already.

Clearly on a site like this a very great deal of the conflation is done by men who are, in many cases, exploring homosexual aspects of their natures. This is in itself damaging to transsexual women, but as Sarah points out you have to look at the bigger picture; people who are quite literally a threat to transsexual women, from right-wing politicians, religious bigots, hard-line feminists to name but a few, routinely conflate them with CD/TV men for political reasons of their own, to the very real detriment of transsexual women. It seems to me truly appalling that on a site like this, where one might expect transsexual women to be seen and dealt with more sympathetically, the same blatant untruth is being perpetuated--and why? So men can indulge their fetishes.

[NYBURBS]

Since you either did not read the section of my post that you quoted or failed to understand it, I refer you to read it again, and if you still have difficulties, ask and I will explain again. In brief, we DO regard some women with XY karotypes, eg those with CAIS, as women with no reservations, and regard the fact that they are, for example, infertile due to lack of the correct organs, as problems of women, so to refuse this recognition to other women with XY karotypes and the same problems, is obviously discriminatory and unfair, and it is this discrimination, against transsexual women, that you are perpetuating. Transsexual women are women. It really is that simple, and you need to re-examine your stance on this.

Yes we regard some people with abnormal or non-standard XY karyotypes as women. Like persons who do not respond to androgen and thus do not develop male sexual characteristics (CAIS). Certainly (at least from what I have read) many transsexuals have standard XY karyotypes (i.e. they are 100% biologically male), yet they don't feel male emotionally or psychologically. Then there is also the issue of ts that remain pre-operative for whatever their own reasons. However, this gets us into once again labeling people and searching out our differences.

Should we differentiate between these groups? One being "real" women, the other pretend or something less than "real"? What I'm saying is that we shouldn't, but nor should we label men that dress in woman's clothing as sick or deviant. There are too many varied causes and reasons for why people choose to act or live in a particular manner, and so long as their behavior isn't harmful it should not be an issue to anyone else.

I'm not saying that you are completely wrong; I'm only pointing out that not everything fits into your neat and orderly system of forms. I'd also have to dispute your allegation that I'm being discriminatory. In fact by advocating that we treat everyone as individuals who are entitled to basic dignity and respect I'm being as non-discriminatory as one can get.

[Bunzee]

sick

ya that was so inappropriate there is nothing sick, it was a simple question

dont judge and you won't be judged

[TsVanessa69]

sick
Being good looking does not give you the right to be mean.
This shit may fly at a bar, where most guys will forgive a good looking girl no matter what she says or does, but here and now.
I highly suggest you respect your self and others and do your up most to stay civil and proper.
Thank you!



I couldnt agree more

[TsVanessa69]

Try laser hair removal. I heard that is really the only way and it is semi permanent. If you are serious, there is always HRT and androgen blockers. Who knows, maybe you would be a sexy lady.
I have to agree. But hormone therapy didnt slow down hair growth on my legs for me and I hated shaving. So I did the laser hair removal from the waist down, front and back. No more hair and super soft skin!!!!

[SarahG]

Should we differentiate between these groups? One being "real" women, the other pretend or something less than "real"?

You know what I like about words?

They convey meaning.

There are legitimate, non-belligerent reasons for differentiating between various groups (for whatever we're talking about, this is true universally). Anyone who frequently reads my posts will notice I use a LOT of labels; tv, ts, mtf, ftm, AG, GG, GB- and so on.

These are helpful, purposeful terms that come in handy in many topics, using them does not require debating what makes a "real" or "less than real" woman.

Take trans issues out of the picture for a moment and think about all the times a second word is applied in conjunction with the word "women" to convey a more specific meaning . There are gazillion ways in which the term women is not, by itself, sufficient to convey accurate meaning. Thus there are people who, when it suits their needs, say "tall women" or "short women" or "obese women" or "black women" or "white women" or "educated women" or "mentally disabled women"-the possibilities here are almost unlimited. If I am talking about mentally disabled women for some specific reason, the fact I said "mentally disabled" before "women" does not indicate that being mentally disabled is a prerequisite (or an excluder) for being a so-called "real" woman.

These distinctions are real- you can talk about obese women and then show that this distinction (being an obese woman) has statistical commonalities, and common problems (for instance, obese women may be at greater risk than obese guys for certain health problems). The problem is that language is imperfect, if I say "obese women", everyone's idea of obese may be different to some extent or another. Yet despite these imperfections, there is still use in having labels- which is probably why we as a race go to such lengths to develop labels (for anything & everything), even when that's easier to do on paper than in nature.

Someone can say "trans-women" instead of just saying "women" without opening up just cause for someone saying "ahh, but see they're actually saying you're a trans woman, you aren't/can't be a real women because of that trans prefix.."

[Tanuki]

ITS NOT ABOUT GENDER OR ANY OF THAT>> its about writing some pervy shit while your dick is hard

[NYBURBS]

ITS NOT ABOUT GENDER OR ANY OF THAT>> its about writing some pervy shit while your dick is hard

Oh yea of course it's about that, because on this PORN forum there are no threads with people posting pervy shit :roll:

[Tanuki]

who knows. who cares.. Im over it.. , i was just trying to clarify some points.. but either you get it or you dont I guess.
last try.

It seemed to be written in the voice of someone caught in that mystical idiotic moment of arrousal.. Sins comment was therefor aproppriately hilarious..
ok. Im done

[BLKGSXR]

RAWR just thought it was needed-Yes a Troll move. :D
Mach3 razor have been proven to be better than Shiick 5blade for women.
The vibrating part maybe? or just that fucking good over a shitty SHIICK!
Motherfuckers act like EVERY HOT ts way ALWAYS HOT no they started somewhere and for some it wasnt easy for others it was.-FIN!

[NYBURBS]

Should we differentiate between these groups? One being "real" women, the other pretend or something less than "real"?

You know what I like about words?

They convey meaning.

There are legitimate, non-belligerent reasons for differentiating between various groups (for whatever we're talking about, this is true universally). Anyone who frequently reads my posts will notice I use a LOT of labels; tv, ts, mtf, ftm, AG, GG, GB- and so on.

These are helpful, purposeful terms that come in handy in many topics, using them does not require debating what makes a "real" or "less than real" woman.

Take trans issues out of the picture for a moment and think about all the times a second word is applied in conjunction with the word "women" to convey a more specific meaning . There are gazillion ways in which the term women is not, by itself, sufficient to convey accurate meaning. Thus there are people who, when it suits their needs, say "tall women" or "short women" or "obese women" or "black women" or "white women" or "educated women" or "mentally disabled women"-the possibilities here are almost unlimited. If I am talking about mentally disabled women for some specific reason, the fact I said "mentally disabled" before "women" does not indicate that being mentally disabled is a prerequisite (or an excluder) for being a so-called "real" woman.

These distinctions are real- you can talk about obese women and then show that this distinction (being an obese woman) has statistical commonalities, and common problems (for instance, obese women may be at greater risk than obese guys for certain health problems). The problem is that language is imperfect, if I say "obese women", everyone's idea of obese may be different to some extent or another. Yet despite these imperfections, there is still use in having labels- which is probably why we as a race go to such lengths to develop labels (for anything & everything), even when that's easier to do on paper than in nature.

Someone can say "trans-women" instead of just saying "women" without opening up just cause for someone saying "ahh, but see they're actually saying you're a trans woman, you aren't/can't be a real women because of that trans prefix.."

Yea you're kinda missing the point Sarah. Yes descriptors are part of any language and that is fine. What took place in this thread though wasn't mere description, it was an attempt to segregate one type of person in order to denounce their preferences, whereas it would have apparently been fine had it come from another type of person.

MacShreach and I ended up going on a tangent, trying to disprove each other's arguments. To keep it brief, my point is his logic falls apart when you follow it through, and that more tolerance and less labeling would be appropriate. Of course people will use descriptors, just hopefully they might refrain from using them in an attempt to be negative toward someone else merely over sexual preference.

[MacShreach]

who knows. who cares.. Im over it.. , i was just trying to clarify some points.. but either you get it or you dont I guess.
last try.

It seemed to be written in the voice of someone caught in that mystical idiotic moment of arrousal.. Sins comment was therefor aproppriately hilarious..
ok. Im done

And totally on-point.

[MacShreach]

Since you either did not read the section of my post that you quoted or failed to understand it, I refer you to read it again, and if you still have difficulties, ask and I will explain again. In brief, we DO regard some women with XY karotypes, eg those with CAIS, as women with no reservations, and regard the fact that they are, for example, infertile due to lack of the correct organs, as problems of women, so to refuse this recognition to other women with XY karotypes and the same problems, is obviously discriminatory and unfair, and it is this discrimination, against transsexual women, that you are perpetuating. Transsexual women are women. It really is that simple, and you need to re-examine your stance on this.

Yes we regard some people with abnormal or non-standard XY karyotypes as women. Like persons who do not respond to androgen and thus do not develop male sexual characteristics (CAIS). Certainly (at least from what I have read) many transsexuals have standard XY karyotypes (i.e. they are 100% biologically male), yet they don't feel male emotionally or psychologically. Then there is also the issue of ts that remain pre-operative for whatever their own reasons. However, this gets us into once again labeling people and searching out our differences.

Should we differentiate between these groups? One being "real" women, the other pretend or something less than "real"? What I'm saying is that we shouldn't, but nor should we label men that dress in woman's clothing as sick or deviant. There are too many varied causes and reasons for why people choose to act or live in a particular manner, and so long as their behavior isn't harmful it should not be an issue to anyone else.

I'm not saying that you are completely wrong; I'm only pointing out that not everything fits into your neat and orderly system of forms. I'd also have to dispute your allegation that I'm being discriminatory. In fact by advocating that we treat everyone as individuals who are entitled to basic dignity and respect I'm being as non-discriminatory as one can get.

You really are determined to ignore the obvious in order to win a point, aren't you?

Tell me, how do you suppose we distinguish the "abnormal" xy karotype you claim is responsible for CAIS? You do realise that many women with CAIS (women with an XY karotype) are only diagnosed when they go for fertility treatment?

And anyway, you simply cannot sit there, smugly accusing me of making false distinctions when that is EXACTLY what you are doing. CAIS women and transsexual women both have XY karotypes, both consider themselves to be women, and, after corrective therapy, both have female genital sex, but YOU want to deny transsexual women their status as women.

You would rather, it seems to me, see them as a category of MEN, which is entirely typical both of many in mainstream society and a very significant proportion of gay men.

I repeat, I don't give a monkey's if a man's freak is to dress up in frilly knickers and jack off; I'm not saying it's sick AT ALL, and I never did. Writing what the OP did, in the way that he did, was, IMO, sick, however. Furthermore, it is frequently the case that CD/TV men associate with transsexual women and even pass themselves off as transsexual, to further their own agendas; being men, however, they are either ignorant or uncaring of the damage that this does to transsexual women. I am against this, and have called them out from time to time; and will do again, I have no doubt.

(I am not going to enumerate here on the deliberate use of support networks for transsexual women, by CD/TV men in order to further their sense of femininity, and the catastrophic effect that has had; I recall illustrating this recently. If you can't find the posts, let me know.)

I don't know how often we are going to have to repeat this until you and others get the point, but transsexual women are WOMEN and crossdressing/TV men are MEN. They are not the same, and they are not even points on a developmental line. Crossdressing and TV men are just men. And transsexual women are just women. Full stop. That's it.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that your repetition of the fundamental, basic mistake of conflating the two was down to a lack of knowledge on your part. You appear to believe that
somehow not distinguishing between CD/TV men and transsexual women was not damaging, and in some sort of Utopian dream of social perfection, perhaps it would not be. But, as both I and Sarah have repeatedly told you, the world is not like that and transsexual women are ACTUALLY HARMED by an association, even by the doubtlessly well-meaning but ill-informed, with CD/TV men.



One of the very first things that we have to do in order to further the acceptance of transsexual women is to break that link. Transsexual women are just ordinary girls, not freaks or people with fetishes or even compulsions to dress up. They appear as women BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE. It has been said by others and it is 100% true, that there is a very small sample of transsexual women on this site, and frankly the people here are bloody lucky to have them. I don't know how some of these women manage to put up with the routine, deliberate and wilful description of them as that which they are not. If it were me I'd be spitting fur and feathers; yet these women come back again and again trying to explain, to people who, apparently wilfully, refuse to recognise the truth, about how things really are, in patient and considered terms. I can only say that I am quite in awe of these women. I simply don't know how they do it.

Now the fact is, that while I do understand the liberal viewpoint you espouse and I think I get your reasons for it, it is, as so often, causing damage and I repeat, you NEED to review your stance. Otherwise you, yes you personally, will remain part of the problem.

[MacShreach]

his logic falls apart when you follow it through

No, it does not, unless you begin from the start-point that transsexual women are actually men. This is what you are doing. It is also what Blanchard, Bailey and a wheen of others did, and the catastrophic damage they caused goes on. Do you really want to go on being part of that?

[Pepa_e_Mango]

I shave my legs regularly and wax once every couple of weeks. I use Azuline Oil to help with the itching; it works for me.

[alyssats]

^uhmmm thats hot

[SarahG]

What took place in this thread though wasn't mere description, it was an attempt to segregate one type of person in order to denounce their preferences... whereas it would have apparently been fine had it come from another type of person.

Only "another type of person" would never have made the original post that started this thread.


hi all i am a 35 year old cd and i finally shaved my legs and now have no body hair!!!! it took me almost an hour, YIKES! i was hoping somebody might have some advice because i am hoping this does not take so long everytime. because i am hooked!!! i love the smoothness of my shapely legs, i couldn't wait to slip into my stockings, garter belt, white stilettos, and sissy satin panties.....too bad i have to play alone! any advice, greatly appreciated, now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!

I can picture a TS early in her transition using the term CD, after all its a slang term that is in the grand scheme of things, entirely meaningless. Lots of girls on here have said they were "a cd" before "becoming TS", using it as a term to refer to the time spent pre-FT/pre-transitioned. The confusion comes from the fact that the exact same term is used DIFFERENTLY by TV's because they hate the term "transvestite" and so they use CD as an alternative name.

All that said, a TS (even a TS early in her transition) making a post seeking shaving advise (and there have been such threads on here before btw) would never have stated "too bad i have to play alone!" because shaving legs has nothing to do with masturbation for ts people. There's no way "too bad i have to play alone!" would fit into a post asking shaving tips. "now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!" would have been equally out of place, and for the same reasons, however I could kinda picture someone who is TS ending random posts with that sentence just to get a rise out of the guys/for attention whoring.

But, like I said earlier- as far as the odd stuff that's been posted on HA goes, putting on hose to jerk off is hardly something unusual. I just can't picture many people on here would be going "omg, did you see that guy saying he put on hose to jerk off?!?! WTFbbq!"- this wasn't 1 man 1 cup, 1 priest 1 nun, "anyone have pictures of shemales with dogs" or anything "far out there" like we see posted here on a regular basis. Despite not being geared towards TVs, this site has a LOT of occasional TV posters, and a LOT of guys who are into TVs (just look at the TV picture threads). So why this thread went hostile when so many dozens/hundreds others JUST LIKE THIS ONE never did? That is a mystery to me.



MacShreach and I ended up going on a tangent, trying to disprove each other's arguments. To keep it brief, my point is his logic falls apart when you follow it through, and that more tolerance and less labeling would be appropriate. Of course people will use descriptors, just hopefully they might refrain from using them in an attempt to be negative toward someone else merely over sexual preference.

You can't have it both ways, you can't simultaneously say that there needs to be less labeling while stating that descriptors are worth having/using. There simply is no reason to object to distinguishing between TV and TS people. Just as there is no reason to object to distinguishing between L, B, G, TV, TS, AG's.

It's that part I put in bold that's the real issue, people being negative towards others over things of no consequence. There was no reason for this thread to go salvagely. So some guys like to put on womens clothes to masturbate, we should care why? It's clean, harmless, and certainly not all that unusual. The saddest part is not that conservatives like to use TVs to prohibit TS acceptance, but that so many people even on this board have bought into their views on this point... and are as a result reacting the ways these groups that WANT TO HARM US, want everyone to react to "guys putting on hose to jerk off."

This shows exactly what I have been talking about. If this is the response to TVs on HA of all places, what do you think the general public are going to think when the lines between TV & TS are blurred (as, imho, they already are... and as they continue to be as TVs try to reinforce these blurred lines, for instance using CD as an alternative word for TV) and conservatives start talking about how "trans acceptance will mean these perverted freaks will be in changing rooms... gym locker rooms, and public restrooms in schools near you!" These hate tactics work, and they work amazingly effectively.

[Instrumental]

It only takes a long time when you first shave or haven't shaved in a long time; so if you shave regularly you won't have to worry about it taking a long time. I also recommend shaving in the shower with warm or hot water, right after you've washed that way your skin is still soft and wet. I also use a Mach 5 razor and that works really well.

Seems like this topic is far from yielding advice now so this post may very well go unnoticed lol.

[KirstenH]

WTF is wrong with you people? what's wrong being a 35 year old Crossdresser?
I started hormones for about 5 months ago and i'm 39 fcuking years young.


OnTopic; i do shave my legs on a daily basis while taking a shower and i'm using Gilette Venus 3.
But soon i'm going to have a laser treatment.


Kisses,
Kirsten

[NYBURBS]

You really are determined to ignore the obvious in order to win a point, aren't you?

I just argue my points though, and in all honesty I could say that you're ignoring the obvious in an attempt to have the facts fall within your own personal line of reasoning.


And anyway, you simply cannot sit there, smugly accusing me of making false distinctions when that is EXACTLY what you are doing. CAIS women and transsexual women both have XY karotypes, both consider themselves to be women, and, after corrective therapy, both have female genital sex, but YOU want to deny transsexual women their status as women.

I don't want to deny anyone their peace of mind or contradict their own self-identity. I traveled down this road to show that if we are going to play "label the person" then the same can be done to transsexual women. On a personal level I don't care how someone identifies themselves, and I'm more than happy to give recognition to it so long as it does not interfere unfairly with my own rights/life or that of another person(s).


You would rather, it seems to me, see them as a category of MEN, which is entirely typical both of many in mainstream society and a very significant proportion of gay men.

I think I just gave my response to the first part of this in my statement above. As for the the gay men addition, if that's I a pop shot at me then w/e lol. I long ago stopped worrying about what label to slap on my sexuality, it is what it is. That's not to say that I would agree with it, I just don't worry about it is all.


I repeat, I don't give a monkey's if a man's freak is to dress up in frilly knickers and jack off; I'm not saying it's sick AT ALL, and I never did. Writing what the OP did, in the way that he did, was, IMO, sick, however.

Look I think you sincerely believe most of your argument, and kudos to you; however, I don't think your statement above is sincere. This forum is FILLED with people making statements no different (and often even more outrageous) then the one made by the OP.



I have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that your repetition of the fundamental, basic mistake of conflating the two was down to a lack of knowledge on your part. You appear to believe that
somehow not distinguishing between CD/TV men and transsexual women was not damaging, and in some sort of Utopian dream of social perfection, perhaps it would not be. But, as both I and Sarah have repeatedly told you, the world is not like that and transsexual women are ACTUALLY HARMED by an association, even by the doubtlessly well-meaning but ill-informed, with CD/TV men.


I have seen enough wicked and sad things in my life to know that the world is not Utopian. Nevertheless, that does not stop me from being decent and civil to people. Perhaps the need to distinguish between everyone is less important to me because I'm comfortable in who I am. If placing people into neat little groups makes you feel better then more power to you, just please keep from bashing on one or more of those groups after you have them separated.

You know as 2009AD pointed out earlier, there are plenty of threads on this forum that make me raise an eyebrow. I just generally avoid saying anything if I don't personally like the subject matter. True there are probably a couple of instances where I've said I found something unappealing or gross, but I don't think it was ever in a way where I attacked a particular person.

[MacShreach]

I just generally avoid saying anything if I don't personally like the subject matter.

Mmm, what was that about "All that is required for evil to flourish....?"

It is your right to see things as you do; you and I are on opposite sides.

[MacShreach]

What took place in this thread though wasn't mere description, it was an attempt to segregate one type of person in order to denounce their preferences... whereas it would have apparently been fine had it come from another type of person.

Only "another type of person" would never have made the original post that started this thread.


hi all i am a 35 year old cd and i finally shaved my legs and now have no body hair!!!! it took me almost an hour, YIKES! i was hoping somebody might have some advice because i am hoping this does not take so long everytime. because i am hooked!!! i love the smoothness of my shapely legs, i couldn't wait to slip into my stockings, garter belt, white stilettos, and sissy satin panties.....too bad i have to play alone! any advice, greatly appreciated, now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!

I can picture a TS early in her transition using the term CD, after all its a slang term that is in the grand scheme of things, entirely meaningless. Lots of girls on here have said they were "a cd" before "becoming TS", using it as a term to refer to the time spent pre-FT/pre-transitioned. The confusion comes from the fact that the exact same term is used DIFFERENTLY by TV's because they hate the term "transvestite" and so they use CD as an alternative name.

All that said, a TS (even a TS early in her transition) making a post seeking shaving advise (and there have been such threads on here before btw) would never have stated "too bad i have to play alone!" because shaving legs has nothing to do with masturbation for ts people. There's no way "too bad i have to play alone!" would fit into a post asking shaving tips. "now to take care of that naughty buldge in my panties!!!!!!" would have been equally out of place, and for the same reasons, however I could kinda picture someone who is TS ending random posts with that sentence just to get a rise out of the guys/for attention whoring.

But, like I said earlier- as far as the odd stuff that's been posted on HA goes, putting on hose to jerk off is hardly something unusual. I just can't picture many people on here would be going "omg, did you see that guy saying he put on hose to jerk off?!?! WTFbbq!"- this wasn't 1 man 1 cup, 1 priest 1 nun, "anyone have pictures of shemales with dogs" or anything "far out there" like we see posted here on a regular basis. Despite not being geared towards TVs, this site has a LOT of occasional TV posters, and a LOT of guys who are into TVs (just look at the TV picture threads). So why this thread went hostile when so many dozens/hundreds others JUST LIKE THIS ONE never did? That is a mystery to me.



MacShreach and I ended up going on a tangent, trying to disprove each other's arguments. To keep it brief, my point is his logic falls apart when you follow it through, and that more tolerance and less labeling would be appropriate. Of course people will use descriptors, just hopefully they might refrain from using them in an attempt to be negative toward someone else merely over sexual preference.

You can't have it both ways, you can't simultaneously say that there needs to be less labeling while stating that descriptors are worth having/using. There simply is no reason to object to distinguishing between TV and TS people. Just as there is no reason to object to distinguishing between L, B, G, TV, TS, AG's.

It's that part I put in bold that's the real issue, people being negative towards others over things of no consequence. There was no reason for this thread to go salvagely. So some guys like to put on womens clothes to masturbate, we should care why? It's clean, harmless, and certainly not all that unusual. The saddest part is not that conservatives like to use TVs to prohibit TS acceptance, but that so many people even on this board have bought into their views on this point... and are as a result reacting the ways these groups that WANT TO HARM US, want everyone to react to "guys putting on hose to jerk off."

This shows exactly what I have been talking about. If this is the response to TVs on HA of all places, what do you think the general public are going to think when the lines between TV & TS are blurred (as, imho, they already are... and as they continue to be as TVs try to reinforce these blurred lines, for instance using CD as an alternative word for TV) and conservatives start talking about how "trans acceptance will mean these perverted freaks will be in changing rooms... gym locker rooms, and public restrooms in schools near you!" These hate tactics work, and they work amazingly effectively.

Yet again, Sarah, a cogently argued, yet passionate and well-written explanation. I agree with everything you have written.

I have to say that I have never encountered a gay man who fully accepts transsexual women as women, and NYBURBS, in his last response to me appeared to confirm that that is what he is.


As for the the gay men addition, if that's I a pop shot at me then w/e lol. I long ago stopped worrying about what label to slap on my sexuality, it is what it is.



:shrug

[SarahG]

I have to say that I have never encountered a gay man who fully accepts transsexual women as women,...

At risk of sending this thread off topic, I've run across more lesbians who refuse to accept transsexual women as women, than gay guys or bi guys.

But, I don't really spend a lot of time in queer culture so my observations there can be easily off base.

[NYBURBS]

.

I have to say that I have never encountered a gay man who fully accepts transsexual women as women, and NYBURBS, in his last response to me appeared to confirm that that is what he is.

:shrug

No more or no less than you are :wink: I just don't get worked up over it either way.

[MacShreach]

No more or no less than you are :wink:

Ah, yes, the old "I'm gay so you must be too," line. Generally used when the debate has been lost.

But that, your understanding of yourself as a gay man and your perception of the world from inside the "GLB" community, is of course what is at the root of your position, isn't it? It is why you have the very typical and predictable reaction you do about "labels," and the reason why you are so hostile to people who, rightly, state the simple fact that there is a difference between CD/TV men and transsexual women. Knowledge and its progress depends upon understanding and at the heart of understanding is categorisation, yet, possibly because gay men feel victimised by categorisation, you are hostile to this, even when that hostility harms other people.


Underneath the "no labels" facade, you believe that transsexual women are part of the homosexual scene, and THAT is why you resent the notion of a differentiation; homosexual men and women have for decades moved their position in society forward, quite appropriately, by the use of solidarity, and that is to be lauded. "Labels," as you call them, are seen by your community as a means that the straight world uses to divide and thus conquer, so you reject them.


The problem with this is that transsexual women are not necessarily part of the homosexual community, despite the efforts of quacks like Blanchard and Bailey to put them there. Modern, enlightened thinking is that transwomen are simply women with a birth disorder that can be relieved by hormone therapy and relatively simple surgery (transmen have this recourse too, but the surgery is not so simple.) Transwomen may be lesbian, and this would put them within the LGB community, but that is on the basis of their orientation, NOT their gender. A straight transsexual woman is as straight as any other woman, indeed perhaps straighter, because she is often so concerned to be a complete woman, something most natal women take very much for granted.

Since they are not part of the homosexual community, transwomen have only one recourse--to integrate into the mainstream society, and this they do with a very wide range of success. Some are totally successful and simply vanish into womanhood, to live their lives as the women they are; others are much less fortunate.

There is no doubt in my mind that this integration into mainstream society is the best thing that could happen to transsexual women. Whatever the merits and demerits of being gay, or the horrible wrongs perpetrated upon gay people over the centuries, these have nothing whatsoever to do with transsexual women per se. They are not gay men, or any category thereof whatsoever; they are women.

Because of this, every time someone like you, perhaps for genuine reasons deriving from your need to protect your own interests as a gay man, or the interests of other gay people, tries to drag transsexual women into your community, tries to suggest, as you do, that there is no difference between a CD/TV man and a transsexual woman and in so doing attempts to deny a transsexual woman her full womanhood and replace it with some sort of partial womanhood sanctioned by YOU, a position which you have repeatedly stated in this debate, you injure transsexual women by making it harder for them to integrate into the mainstream.


:shrug

And you can call me anything you like, but as they say over here, "facts is chiels that winna ding," and those facts I will continue to repeat.

[dgs925]

And you can call me anything you like, but as they say over here, "facts is chiels that winna ding," and those facts I will continue to repeat.

I thought they spoke English over there.

You sure do write some long-winded shit I'm never going to bother to read.


I do agree that it's pretty hard to understand why the transsexual porn stars that populate this board would attract so many non-heterosexual men. I just can't figure out why. Oh, wait, maybe because they keep taking pictures of their cocks and posting them.

[NYBURBS]

No more or no less than you are :wink:

Ah, yes, the old "I'm gay so you must be too," line. Generally used when the debate has been lost.

But that, your understanding of yourself as a gay man and your perception of the world from inside the "GLB" community, is of course what is at the root of your position, isn't it? It is why you have the very typical and predictable reaction you do about "labels," and the reason why you are so hostile to people who, rightly, state the simple fact that there is a difference between CD/TV men and transsexual women. Knowledge and its progress depends upon understanding and at the heart of understanding is categorisation, yet, possibly because gay men feel victimised by categorisation, you are hostile to this, even when that hostility harms other people.


Underneath the "no labels" facade, you believe that transsexual women are part of the homosexual scene, and THAT is why you resent the notion of a differentiation; homosexual men and women have for decades moved their position in society forward, quite appropriately, by the use of solidarity, and that is to be lauded. "Labels," as you call them, are seen by your community as a means that the straight world uses to divide and thus conquer, so you reject them.


The problem with this is that transsexual women are not necessarily part of the homosexual community, despite the efforts of quacks like Blanchard and Bailey to put them there. Modern, enlightened thinking is that transwomen are simply women with a birth disorder that can be relieved by hormone therapy and relatively simple surgery (transmen have this recourse too, but the surgery is not so simple.) Transwomen may be lesbian, and this would put them within the LGB community, but that is on the basis of their orientation, NOT their gender. A straight transsexual woman is as straight as any other woman, indeed perhaps straighter, because she is often so concerned to be a complete woman, something most natal women take very much for granted.

Since they are not part of the homosexual community, transwomen have only one recourse--to integrate into the mainstream society, and this they do with a very wide range of success. Some are totally successful and simply vanish into womanhood, to live their lives as the women they are; others are much less fortunate.

There is no doubt in my mind that this integration into mainstream society is the best thing that could happen to transsexual women. Whatever the merits and demerits of being gay, or the horrible wrongs perpetrated upon gay people over the centuries, these have nothing whatsoever to do with transsexual women per se. They are not gay men, or any category thereof whatsoever; they are women.

Because of this, every time someone like you, perhaps for genuine reasons deriving from your need to protect your own interests as a gay man, or the interests of other gay people, tries to drag transsexual women into your community, tries to suggest, as you do, that there is no difference between a CD/TV man and a transsexual woman and in so doing attempts to deny a transsexual woman her full womanhood and replace it with some sort of partial womanhood sanctioned by YOU, a position which you have repeatedly stated in this debate, you injure transsexual women by making it harder for them to integrate into the mainstream.


:shrug

And you can call me anything you like, but as they say over here, "facts is chiels that winna ding," and those facts I will continue to repeat.

Now I'm gonna have to lol a bit here, because I think I must have hit a nerve. I have only slept with women and ts, as I'm assuming you have. So to some that makes us gay big guy, or at least not straight. Of course you're gripping onto the "they're 100% women totally real, mommy tell them I'm not gay because that's a girl penis, not a boy penis, in my mouth." Whereas I just don't give a fuck either way what it makes me so long as I enjoy the person I'm with, but you keep on keeping on with your 10 paragraph long denials. I just hope that one day when the reality of the situation actually hits you that you're able to cope with it.

[SarahG]

I do agree that it's pretty hard to understand why the transsexual porn stars that populate this board would attract so many non-heterosexual men. I just can't figure out why. Oh, wait, maybe because they keep taking pictures of their cocks and posting them.

I think it's somewhat obvious really, there are people on both sides (gay guys, and gay women) who would like to try to use tgirls as a beard/cover so to speak. After all, for gay or bi guys if the girl is passable no one in their social circle would "know", so its staying in the closet with the benefits of a mainstream relationship (no stares when dating, no abnormal comments from friends/relatives).... at least until if/when the girl gets clocked.

We've certainly seen people here who have gone so far as to actually say to the effect of "all that matters is the cock, and at that point it doesn't matter if the cock is on a girl or a guy." I think the danger comes in assuming that all guys on here are either/or (either gay OR straight) with no middle ground. Last I checked, bisexuality really exists (even if Bailey claims it doesn't). I don't see how someone could claim with a straight face that someone is a "gay guy" when they eagerly & happily have sex with GG's... even if the individual in question is heading off to highway rest areas in the middle of the night.

I am also surprised how many chasers are TVs, I am also surprised how many chasers claim (whether or not this is true, IDK, but it sure seems a lot CLAIM) that they are ts but just "never transitioned."

[bte]

I am amazed at how a simple post such as the best to shave a person's legs has turned into an 8 page discussion about nothing really.

The best way to shave legs is with a razor, I think someone said a Mach 3 which is pretty good. You might want to look into laser hair removal, that is if you are interested in living full time as woman.

[MacShreach]

a boy penis, in my mouth

Interesting.

Whatever my sexuality is, or for that matter yours, YOU do NOT have the right to decide how much of a woman a transsexual woman is. Not ever. The only person with that right is the woman herself.

Which brings us neatly back to the actual denial here, which is yours, in your denial of a difference between a transsexual woman and a crossdressing or transvestite man.

The difference exists, it is real and no matter how you couch it, in denying it you are denying transsexual women their status as women.

And you, personally, are simply not capable of touching a nerve with me. However you insist on maintaining a viewpoint which is wholly reprehensible and discriminatory, even after it has been repeatedly explained to you, not just by me, how wrong you are; and that wilful, deliberate discrimination and your denial of a group of women's right to be women, yes, that does touch a nerve.

[MacShreach]

crap.


What, not edited your post yet, Petal?

[MacShreach]

I think the danger comes in assuming that all guys on here are either/or (either gay OR straight) with no middle ground. Last I checked, bisexuality really exists (even if Bailey claims it doesn't). I don't see how someone could claim with a straight face that someone is a "gay guy" when they eagerly & happily have sex with GG's... even if the individual in question is heading off to highway rest areas in the middle of the night.

I am also surprised how many chasers are TVs, I am also surprised how many chasers claim (whether or not this is true, IDK, but it sure seems a lot CLAIM) that they are ts but just "never transitioned."

Clearly there is a range of shades of orientation from completely straight to completely homosexual; Kinsey established this a long time ago. Bailey's work on bisexuality is spurious and has been well and truly debunked both in terms of his methodology and his results. Indeed his results are the exact opposite in that he sees a strict duality ("gay, straight or lying,") when others see a continuum. I get the feeling that Mike Bailey likes a controversy (and I'm no stranger to that myself,) but I also think he is not above shaping his "research" to allow him to curry one, and it is that uummmm flexibility of standards, shall we say, that has landed him in the shit.

Mandy has said that she finds she gets on best with "openly bisexual men" and I can understand that.

I would be interested in knowing more about your second statement; I have heard this before. It is intriguing. Maybe we should do a poll.

[dgs925]

crap.


What, not edited your post yet, Petal?

Wait, is there a rule against editing posts? I missed that one, I actually thought that was the whole point of there being an "edit" button.


And what does Petal mean? You have to clue me in on the slang where you come from. I assume that it means "fag" because that is what you do when you want to deride someone - you call them gay. For the life of me I can't figure out why you use that as an insult, except maybe because you are homophobic.

[karaalextv]

Heavenly Sin is a stuck up bitch.

[dgs925]

Heavenly Sin is a stuck up bitch.Feel better now that you've put someone else down?

[sockmonkey]

...who would like to try to use tgirls as a beard/cover so to speak.


Personally, I like to think of a beard as a "face sweater."

[Clind]

MacSchit , do you have some mental problem or something??

No, but judging from your input on the moon landing thread, you might. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

lol McShit i didnt expect anything better from you , it was obvious that you will believe that i m serious in that thread , you stupid ass. :wink:

[MacShreach]

you stupid ass. :wink:

[Veronica420]

MacShreach: You seem to hate yourself. Maybe you should seek help? I am not trying to be rude here, I just wanna help.

Good luck to you!

[MacShreach]

MacShreach: You seem to hate yourself.

Umm, no, I don't. I have a nice life and I sleep easy nights. Quite a few other people do hate me though. Perhaps you are one?

Because if you are, don't expect me to care.

And good luck to you too, er, Veronica.

[TsVanessa69]

Heavenly Sin is a stuck up bitch.Feel better now that you've put someone else down?
No just telling the truth

[TsVanessa69]

If you are in Chicago let me share this with you.
I do laser hair removal from the waist down. Its $250 front -back- pubies and ass. Now thats a deal you can't beat. I have had a total of 3 treatments so far and its amazing how sily smooth my legs are, and it lasts. The treatments are every 8 weeks, and I love it I wear shorst now something I never did before because I wasnt comfortable. The guys name is George, a nice butch gay guy. Very professional in a LICENSED cllinic enviroment!
Eternal Youth Spa
2945 W. Perterson Ave #100
773-784-2222 tell them I sent ya! :wink:

[TylerDurden68]

Use Nair for men. But keep it off of your
naughty bits!!!