Oh god. If you thought Jerry Springer was bad...

[BrendaQG]

Look at this shit, look at it.

Man busted in lady's swimsuit 3:45
A man is arrested while wearing a neon green woman's bathing suit (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/09/pn.swimsuit.arrest.cnn)

Take a look at the way liberal LGBT friendly CNN's anchors talk about this guy. It's like they are saying what they likely think when reporting on one of us.

Now homeboy looked like shit in that bathing suit but comeon.

[2009AD]

Look at this shit, look at it.

Man busted in lady's swimsuit 3:45
A man is arrested while wearing a neon green woman's bathing suit (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/09/pn.swimsuit.arrest.cnn)

Take a look at the way liberal LGBT friendly CNN's anchors talk about this guy. It's like they are saying what they likely think when reporting on one of us.

Now homeboy looked like shit in that bathing suit but comeon.

So to you, any man who puts on a lady's swimsuit, harasses and exposes himself to girls, is automatically a member of the LGBT community?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6qaoyOEN4Y

Ohio man in woman's swimsuit accused of harassment

BELLBROOK, Ohio (AP) — Police in Ohio say they have arrested a Dayton-area man they accuse of harassing girls while dressed in a green one-piece woman's swimsuit.

Sugarcreek Township police Sgt. Mark White said Tuesday they arrested 41-year-old Kevin L. Miller of Sugarcreek Township on Monday night. Miller has been charged with menacing and public indecency.

Police say several girls complained that a man wearing a woman's swimsuit approached them and verbally harassed them as they walked home from an ice cream shop. Police say some girls at a canoe rental shop said the man later approached them and partially exposed himself.
White says Miller was wearing a woman's swimsuit when police arrested him on his property.

[flabbybody]

the anchor lady looks like this tranny

[sugdaddie69]

Brenda,you ought be shame of yourself to even compare or associate that clown with ,as you put it"one of us".What us are you're referring too.Can't be the girls on here.Can't be the guys on here(well maybe a few select ones).Who is us?????

[Nowhere]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.

[sugdaddie69]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart. :claps

[Felicia Katt]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.
well said, too many people are too quick to over apply that label, which has acquired a really negative connotation. Just because some one may cross dress doesn't mean they should be called a cross dresser, anymore than you would call every guy who has ever sucked a cock a cocksucker :)

FK

[SarahG]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.



So to you, any man who puts on a lady's swimsuit, harasses and exposes himself to girls, is automatically a member of the LGBT community?

Actually, a CD/TV would be a member of the LGBT community. You're both wrong here, insofaras the TG community INCLUDES cd's, tv's, ag's and gender queer people in addition to TS people.

Whether we like it or not, they are grouped into the TG community, and whether we like it or not that TG community is grouped into the LGB community.

The trans community has never been "just" for TS people. Not by a long shot.

Now if you're saying that CD/TVs who like exposing themselves in public shouldn't be reflective of TS people, then sure- I'd agree with you 100%. But that's not what you're saying here.

The potential problem here is that the swimsuit in question is not the same as "flashing someone." This is an article of clothing that is legal for people to wear. So the guy is chasing people, obviously trying to get a rise out of people in public- that's disturbing the peace, not indecent exposure.

If we start defining this sort of thing as indecent exposure, then we've just effectively outlawed nonpassable ts people from wearing swimsuits in public.

This story is made out of all kinds of Fail, for one ts people need more tvs causing scenes in public like we need more people getting off for murders with gay panic defenses, second we really really don't need more towns thinking it should be "illegal" to wear clothing of the opposite sex.

[Nowhere]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.



So to you, any man who puts on a lady's swimsuit, harasses and exposes himself to girls, is automatically a member of the LGBT community?

Actually, a CD/TV would be a member of the LGBT community. You're both wrong here, insofaras the TG community INCLUDES cd's, tv's, ag's and gender queer people in addition to TS people.

Whether we like it or not, they are grouped into the TG community, and whether we like it or not that TG community is grouped into the LGB community.

The trans community has never been "just" for TS people. Not by a long shot.

Now if you're saying that CD/TVs who like exposing themselves in public shouldn't be reflective of TS people, then sure- I'd agree with you 100%. But that's not what you're saying here.

The potential problem here is that the swimsuit in question is not the same as "flashing someone." This is an article of clothing that is legal for people to wear. So the guy is chasing people, obviously trying to get a rise out of people in public- that's disturbing the peace, not indecent exposure.

If we start defining this sort of thing as indecent exposure, then we've just effectively outlawed nonpassable ts people from wearing swimsuits in public.

This story is made out of all kinds of Fail, for one ts people need more tvs causing scenes in public like we need more people getting off for murders with gay panic defenses, second we really really don't need more towns thinking it should be "illegal" to wear clothing of the opposite sex.

Well then maybe what I'm saying is that maybe they shouldn't, since clearly it works in every way possible against the community's progress.

To me, fetishes are a completely different world than the GLBT community. Diapers, Furries, people into golden showers, Feederism, etc - are all about something someone chooses to get their rocks off on, and does it for their own pleasure, while if someone who is GLBT is inherently born that way (not that anything is wrong with a fetish, mind you).

Now, I know in the past all people categorized as "sexual deviants" (meaning anything other than atypical heterosexual sex) came together by having defense in larger numbers, but that's all there really was in common between groups. And given how times have changed, I really think anything remotely TV/CD shouldn't even be put in the same room as someone truly Trans, and passability has absolutely nothing to do with it (although usually is a reflection on how much of a fetish it really is).

Even in that video, the guy was clearly getting his rocks off on the clothing, the kink of that. Compare that to a somewhat unpassable, but real, tgirl, who would have such a presence reflected in who they are, likely simply wearing standard casual womens' clothes (like jeans and flats, etc). Clearly one person is simply being who they are, and the other person is getting a kick off of being something they're not.

Removing this confusion, IMO, is ESSENTIAL in making any progress for the t-community.

[2009AD]

No Sarah, you are wrong. The man was arrested wearing a lady's swimsuit, that does not automatically make him a CD. According to police he "partially exposed" himself.



This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.



So to you, any man who puts on a lady's swimsuit, harasses and exposes himself to girls, is automatically a member of the LGBT community?

Actually, a CD/TV would be a member of the LGBT community. You're both wrong here, insofaras the TG community INCLUDES cd's, tv's, ag's and gender queer people in addition to TS people.

Whether we like it or not, they are grouped into the TG community, and whether we like it or not that TG community is grouped into the LGB community.

The trans community has never been "just" for TS people. Not by a long shot.

Now if you're saying that CD/TVs who like exposing themselves in public shouldn't be reflective of TS people, then sure- I'd agree with you 100%. But that's not what you're saying here.

The potential problem here is that the swimsuit in question is not the same as "flashing someone." This is an article of clothing that is legal for people to wear. So the guy is chasing people, obviously trying to get a rise out of people in public- that's disturbing the peace, not indecent exposure.

If we start defining this sort of thing as indecent exposure, then we've just effectively outlawed nonpassable ts people from wearing swimsuits in public.

This story is made out of all kinds of Fail, for one ts people need more tvs causing scenes in public like we need more people getting off for murders with gay panic defenses, second we really really don't need more towns thinking it should be "illegal" to wear clothing of the opposite sex.

[SarahG]

To me, fetishes are a completely different world than the GLBT community.

Well, if you're going to get that picky (which IMHO, you should) much of the GLBT community has nothing in common with each other.

It is easy to show that TVs & AGs have nothing in common with TG people.

It's also easy to show that trans issues has nothing to do with orientation.



Now, I know in the past all people categorized as "sexual deviants" (meaning anything other than atypical heterosexual sex) came together by having defense in larger numbers, but that's all there really was in common between groups.

Well, I think a lot of it is the whole "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck- then it must be a duck" factor.

The whole LGBT community (as in everyone who falls under that massive group) is frequently stereotyped to violate sex-norms relating to presentation/appearance. I.e. butch lesbians, flamer gay guys, nonpassable TS's, TVs that won't wear clothing typical of their age or either sex... I could go on and on.

I think the fact that you can't use hrt, or even breast implants as a litmus test to separate tv people from ts people is evidence enough that no matter how much "educating" you do, the general public is going to have some serious problems understanding that "they're not all ducks."


Even in that video, the guy was clearly getting his rocks off on the clothing, the kink of that. Compare that to a somewhat unpassable, but real, tgirl, who would just be standard casual womens' clothes (like jeans and flats, etc).

I don't disagree the guy was clearly getting a rise out of people in public for his own enjoyment.

...but, there becomes a significant problem when we start using the system to regulate stuff that simply makes people feel uncomfortable.

Like you said, a nonpassable ts person may wear clothing typical of their gender & age... but they still have to use a public bathroom EVENTUALLY. That's a problem if the law takes the position of "if it makes people uncomfortable, it should be prohibited." Even nonpassable TS people still should be able to go use a public beach in a swimsuit, even if they have beard shadow, even if they can't tuck right.


Removing this confusion, IMO, is ESSENTIAL in making any progress for the t-community.

I agree. I don't see how its possible to accomplish in full (its not something I pretend to know the answer to), but I agree it's an essential step needed for any meaningful reform, politically, legally, or medically.

Take the people who have had a TV do something like this in public. What are they going will be the first thing that enters their mind if in the future someplace else, they come across a nonpassable ts girl? I would bet that they're first reaction will be a flashback to "that weird guy who chased them through the park in a neon green swimsuit" regardless how conservatively the nonpassable ts girl is dressed.

[BrendaQG]

This is a crossdresser, who has nothing to do with the TG community. Fetishes and gender identity are worlds apart.
well said, too many people are too quick to over apply that label, which has acquired a really negative connotation. Just because some one may cross dress doesn't mean they should be called a cross dresser, anymore than you would call every guy who has ever sucked a cock a cocksucker :)

FK


Felicia I agree totally that people like that gentleman and transsexuals are worlds apart. But in between those two ends of the spectrum there are continuous shades of gender. That whole spectrum as SarahG points out is the TG community from the hairiest CD to the cuntiest post-op. So even though this person likely does not identify as a woman, though they just might, they would be considered TG either way.

As for what this person did and what they are charged with. They apparently are charged with public indecency for being male and wearing a female bathing suit. :-? I hope that does not fly...unless he was whipping it out too.

The whole thing just stinks, from the way the reporters talked to the charges of "public indecency" apparently just for wearing an article of women's clothing.

[SarahG]

No Sarah, you are wrong. The man was arrested wearing a lady's swimsuit, that does not automatically make him a CD. According to police he "partially exposed" himself.


Ok, so what do you think this guy was, if he wasn't a tv?

If he isn't a tv and is just some guy who wanted to scare people by putting on a swimsuit, then fine I'll admit I am wrong insofar as labeling him. You're right, we really don't know what label would accurately define whoever he is.

I am not sure I buy the "he partially exposed himself" line. WTF does partially exposed mean? Is that like "partially kosher" or "partially pregnant"?

For all we know they meant he had an erection (given the story I'd say that's probable) which was visible through the thin swimsuit (given the video I'd say that's probably too). Having a visible erection in public isn't criminal, in fact its common. The novelty here is that he is in a green swimsuit chasing people in public, which would be criminal (disturbing the peace).

[BrendaQG]

Having a visible erection in public isn't criminal, in fact its common.

In a few states that is actually a misdemeanor.

[Felicia Katt]

Felicia I agree totally that people like that gentleman and transsexuals are worlds apart. But in between those two ends of the spectrum there are continuous shades of gender. That whole spectrum as SarahG points out is the TG community from the hairiest CD to the cuntiest post-op. So even though this person likely does not identify as a woman, though they just might, they would be considered TG either way.

As for what this person did and what they are charged with. They apparently are charged with public indecency for being male and wearing a female bathing suit. :-? I hope that does not fly...unless he was whipping it out too.

The whole thing just stinks, from the way the reporters talked to the charges of "public indecency" apparently just for wearing an article of women's clothing.
Define people by their actions and intentions. Wearing a bathing suit is not the crime, without the intention to cause a disturbance or to make others uncomfortable. Anyone, male or female, who did what that person did while wearing that bathing suit would be equally culpable. It may have more impact when its a man, since it violated additional gender/ cultural norms, but in either case, its indecent.

But why should we expect the rest of society to make that distinction, when here in our own small community, we don't. We apply labels, with their pejorative intention and negative connotation intact, based on actions alone and not intentions, and we do so very broadly. Granted, you can objectively see what someone does and have to to more subjectively glean how they feel, but some here don't even bother. Labels are used to divide, not define and then to defend their own dismissive behavior. So long as people in this community use "Just a crossdresser" to demean all those they determine are not a TS, by what they have or have not done instead of also by how they may or may not feel, the rest of society will follow suit, bathing or otherwise.

FK

[SarahG]

Felicia I agree totally that people like that gentleman and transsexuals are worlds apart. But in between those two ends of the spectrum there are continuous shades of gender. That whole spectrum as SarahG points out is the TG community from the hairiest CD to the cuntiest post-op. So even though this person likely does not identify as a woman, though they just might, they would be considered TG either way.

As for what this person did and what they are charged with. They apparently are charged with public indecency for being male and wearing a female bathing suit. :-? I hope that does not fly...unless he was whipping it out too.

The whole thing just stinks, from the way the reporters talked to the charges of "public indecency" apparently just for wearing an article of women's clothing.
Define people by their actions and intentions. Wearing a bathing suit is not the crime, without the intention to cause a disturbance or to make others uncomfortable. Anyone, male or female, who did what that person did while wearing that bathing suit would be equally culpable. It may have more impact when its a man, since it violated additional gender/ cultural norms, but in either case, its indecent.

But why should we expect the rest of society to make that distinction, when here in our own small community, we don't. We apply labels, with their pejorative intention and negative connotation intact, based on actions alone and not intentions, and we do so very broadly. Granted, you can objectively see what someone does and have to to more subjectively glean how they feel, but some here don't even bother. Labels are used to divide, not define and then to defend their own dismissive behavior. So long as people in this community use "Just a crossdresser" to demean all those they determine are not a TS, by what they have or have not done instead of also by how they may or may not feel, the rest of society will follow suit, bathing or otherwise.

FK

If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying that our use of terms & labels is what determines how society uses the same terms & labels?

I really disagree with that. If anything the reverse is more true (that terms & labels are more likely to come from the rest of society).

Take AG as an example. There are people who have posted on this forum claiming to identify as AG.

Yet the word itself didn't even exist until 1989 when Ray Blanchard coined it. Anyone who calls them self an AG is choosing to identify with a term from outside of the so-called community, penned by a doctor who wanted it to exist to further his own personal & professional agendas. I even would go so far as to wonder how many of the people who identify as AG even know the term's origin & history.

I kind of have to wonder how many people would draw distinctions between TVs and TSs in the community if social conservatives weren't consistently trying to imply there is no difference to further their agendas. In that example, it also shows the two applications of terms are asymmetrical based on agenda rather than one group mimicking the other.

[BrendaQG]

Felicia I agree totally that people like that gentleman and transsexuals are worlds apart. But in between those two ends of the spectrum there are continuous shades of gender. That whole spectrum as SarahG points out is the TG community from the hairiest CD to the cuntiest post-op. So even though this person likely does not identify as a woman, though they just might, they would be considered TG either way.

As for what this person did and what they are charged with. They apparently are charged with public indecency for being male and wearing a female bathing suit. :-? I hope that does not fly...unless he was whipping it out too.

The whole thing just stinks, from the way the reporters talked to the charges of "public indecency" apparently just for wearing an article of women's clothing.
Define people by their actions and intentions. Wearing a bathing suit is not the crime, without the intention to cause a disturbance or to make others uncomfortable. Anyone, male or female, who did what that person did while wearing that bathing suit would be equally culpable. It may have more impact when its a man, since it violated additional gender/ cultural norms, but in either case, its indecent.

But why should we expect the rest of society to make that distinction, when here in our own small community, we don't. We apply labels, with their pejorative intention and negative connotation intact, based on actions alone and not intentions, and we do so very broadly. Granted, you can objectively see what someone does and have to to more subjectively glean how they feel, but some here don't even bother. Labels are used to divide, not define and then to defend their own dismissive behavior. So long as people in this community use "Just a crossdresser" to demean all those they determine are not a TS, by what they have or have not done instead of also by how they may or may not feel, the rest of society will follow suit, bathing or otherwise.

FK

If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying that our use of terms & labels is what determines how society uses the same terms & labels?

I really disagree with that. If anything the reverse is more true (that terms & labels are more likely to come from the rest of society).

Take AG as an example. There are people who have posted on this forum claiming to identify as AG.

Yet the word itself didn't even exist until 1989 when Ray Blanchard coined it. Anyone who calls them self an AG is choosing to identify with a term from outside of the so-called community, penned by a doctor who wanted it to exist to further his own personal & professional agendas. I even would go so far as to wonder how many of the people who identify as AG even know the term's origin & history.

I kind of have to wonder how many people would draw distinctions between TVs and TSs in the community if social conservatives weren't consistently trying to imply there is no difference to further their agendas. In that example, it also shows the two applications of terms are asymmetrical based on agenda rather than one group mimicking the other.

I don't know about that. Terms and labels are something that everyone has to agree on. Let's face it to average Joe the "six pack" plumber type guys and gals the difference between a post op TS and the guy in this story is marginal. Real talk that is how they look at us unfortunately. We cannot apply a perjorative label to a subgroup without bringing the rest of us down.

These labels and movements which have agenda's can come from within the community as well. Consider "Harry Benjamin Syndrome", and how the people who say that's what they are tend to act. Bitchy, eager to call someone a transgender or even autogynephile, but they get a pass on it because their intersex/ biological disorder based model appeals to the biological determinism of some people in our society. (Read HBS appeals to people who think that the masculine and feminine standards of 21st century are hardwired into the brain, as opposed to other alternative gender expressions.)

Labels are good names are good. The best thing anyone has ever said about just what labels and names are worth is at 3:47-5:25 of this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI) (The guy talking is Richard Feynman it's worth it). The just of it is that labels are not knowledge, they only help us talk to eachother about knowledge.

[arnie666]

Oh come on I can't believe people are defending this pervert. He was going around harrassing women for fucks sake. Imagine being a young women walking on your own and coming across this sick hairy arsed weirdo trying to make you uncomfortable.

Good thing the cops got him, because sometimes these things can escalate it something far more serious.

[Felicia Katt]

If I am understanding you correctly, you're saying that our use of terms & labels is what determines how society uses the same terms & labels?

I really disagree with that. If anything the reverse is more true (that terms & labels are more likely to come from the rest of society).

Take AG as an example. There are people who have posted on this forum claiming to identify as AG.

Yet the word itself didn't even exist until 1989 when Ray Blanchard coined it. Anyone who calls them self an AG is choosing to identify with a term from outside of the so-called community, penned by a doctor who wanted it to exist to further his own personal & professional agendas. I even would go so far as to wonder how many of the people who identify as AG even know the term's origin & history.

I kind of have to wonder how many people would draw distinctions between TVs and TSs in the community if social conservatives weren't consistently trying to imply there is no difference to further their agendas. In that example, it also shows the two applications of terms are asymmetrical based on agenda rather than one group mimicking the other.
Regardless of their sources, I'm saying our misuse of terms and labels is part of what social conservatives in turn misuse to justify the continued marginalizing of this community as part of whatever bigger agenda they have. Call it define and conquer. By generalizing the community as whole to its worst examples, they try to reduce its credibility as a whole. But by pitting one part of the community against another, they try reduce the power of a unified group. When we focus through their lenses on these divisive definitions we lose sight of the greater things we have in common that unite us.

Differences and distinctions are fine, but divisions and disparate treatment should not be. Churchill said that you measure the degree of civilisation of a society by how it treats its weakest members. I take it a step farther and say society measures a community within it that same way but then treats all its members the way it sees its members treating each other.

FK

[BrendaQG]

Oh come on I can't believe people are defending this pervert. He was going around harrassing women for fucks sake. Imagine being a young women walking on your own and coming across this sick hairy arsed weirdo trying to make you uncomfortable.

Good thing the cops got him, because sometimes these things can escalate it something far more serious.

No one's "defending him", however as much as people here may not like it, what is being said about his situation is just what the average joe is likely to think about any one of us. (the only reason they wouldn't is because one may pass just well enough to evade their notice.)

Rights have to be for all of us or none of us really have them.

[TheLongChodeAhead]

it may be comparing apples to oranges, but remember, they're both fruits

[alyssats]

i just couldnt believe some people would be in that kind of things, so much fetishes out there. well at least he have the gutts to wear swim suits beside a road i dont even have much confidence to do that

[SarahG]

Oh come on I can't believe people are defending this pervert. He was going around harrassing women for fucks sake. Imagine being a young women walking on your own and coming across this sick hairy arsed weirdo trying to make you uncomfortable.

Good thing the cops got him, because sometimes these things can escalate it something far more serious.

I'm certainly not defending him.

I don't care who or what someone is, if you're going around CHASING people- that's fucked up. End of story.

My problem is strictly with the way the police handled it. I don't think indecent exposure was the correct charge, however that doesn't mean he should have been released & allowed to go around chasing people. There are certainly other things they could have charged him with, that I wouldn't have cared about.

[SarahG]

Regardless of their sources, I'm saying our misuse of terms and labels is part of what social conservatives in turn misuse to justify the continued marginalizing of this community as part of whatever bigger agenda they have.

I don't doubt the conservatives smile with glee upon seeing the lgbt community turn on itself (i.e. dropping trans inclusion in ENDA).

But, I still don't see any evidence that would show that the community's factions are responsible for the way the social conservatives misuse terms & labels.

The social conservatives have, from the very start, held control of the dialogs. For as long as there has been a LGBT community, it's been a constant game of "Hear and react." The social conservatives will make some absurd argument, the community will take notice of it, and react by pointing out the argument is absurd, and repeat.

There is a reason why anyone who holds control of the debate direction, in a debate, wins the debate even if they don't have accuracy & the truth on their side. Just look at how effective absurd disinformation has been in the global warming debate (and that's not an atypical example).


Call it define and conquer. By generalizing the community as whole to its worst examples, they try to reduce its credibility as a whole. But by pitting one part of the community against another, they try reduce the power of a unified group.

I really have a hard time buying that the Republican Party in NH this year decided that they should imply all trans people are "sexually deviant perverts" thinking that it would serve to divide the relatively powerless TG community & cause TG community infighting.

The reason why they made the "sexually deviant perverts" argument when facing a trans-inclusive discrimination bill was because its a scare tactic that WORKS with people outside the community. All they have to do is talk about the people who would do stunts like this guy from this news story, and say "would you want this happening in a female restroom when your wife or young daughter walks in?"

In state after state, town after town, city after city- that argument has been EXTREMELY effective in convincing non-trans voters that trans discrimination bills are a risky idea, and the social conservatives know this.

Just because something is a consequence of an argument, doesn't mean it was the intended effect of an argument. An added unforeseen bonus, sure. But not the main objective. The main objective was getting the non-trans voters to react the way they did in NH. It was predictable, it has happened before, and it worked without a hitch.