TV vs TS

[tsmounting]

Hi guys (in the non-gender specific sense!),
I've been searching through some ts and general dating sites and when searching I am constantly seeing TV results that i really don't want to see when I am seeking TS results.
Similarly, some tv's only like guys who like 'guy' type girls or actual guys and so a massive flaw continues to exist in the websites.
Who finds this an issue? Who thinks this should not be an issue?
I have very particular tastes and if i didn't have to filter through blatantly unsuitable prospects I would be on other sites or using the site VERY differently.
For the purposes of superceding discussion, I understand a 'ts' to be tits, and curves with cock against 'tv' which is generally man-in-wig.
Please people, offer your thoughts.

[rodinuk]

Birchplace's Detailed Search has the ability to search by TV and/or pre-op TS and/or post-op TS but they've throttled the results so you have to cough-up money to get the full results as a Gold Member.

[sophiebendable]

I understand the frustration as guys sometimes ask me things like "are you full time?," which I would assume to be obvious when I say I'm a ts. That said, outside of a dating context it is a fuzzy line since many transvestites want to transition or end up doing so and also many transsexuals do live "part time" because of life circumstances, even if they're on hormones. Even more significant than that, I think what many men don't realize is the variety of bodies transsexual women live in. Obviously a lot of us have vaginas, which is not what most admirers are interested in, but it goes much further than that.

Even those of us with penises are different in ways that might really matter to what you're looking for. Most men have only seen us in porn and don't realize that the vast majority of pornstars and escorts do not take hormones so they can get hard and ejaculate. I totally understand this because, even with viagra, we would be like all other women in that viewers wouldn't be able to tell if we were faking it (I guess this is the same reason why squirting is so popular). With no testosterone in my body, I still get hard when I'm excited, but nothing comes out when I orgasm. I was explaining this to a guy yesterday and he said he didn't believe me! I was like, "Um, I don't really care if you believe how my body works, especially since you seem to have no understanding of human biology." I'm not a top, so I can't speak to whether being on hormones would be a problem if that was something that really excited me, but most top transsexuals I know say it is. I guess as a bottom I just have a lower bar for my erections ;)

Bottom line, while I agree it makes sense to separate transsexuals and transvestites on dating sites, it's probably not as simple as that :p

[rodinuk]

One complication is that the occasional TV deliberately advertises as TS in order to charge the higher rate. e.g. £150/hr instead of £120/hr

[GroobyKrissy]

Hi Girls (in the specifically gender sense!),

I've been searching through some general dating sites and when searching I am constantly seeing fat, old men results that I really don't want to see when I am seeking totally hot, rich, perfect men.

Similarly, some guys only like girls who will, like, take care of them sexually, and so a massive flaw continues to exist in the websites.

Who finds this an issue? Who thinks this should not be an issue?

I have very particular tastes and if I didn't have to waste my time being propositioned by blatantly unsuitable prospects, I'd probably be married and be living the perfect life by now.

For the purposes of [sic] superceding discussion, I understand a person who describes himself as a "man" to be height and weight proportionate, with a full head of hair, plenty of muscles, and of course, rich. Others need not apply.

OK... doesn't the above sound totally vapid and self-absorbed?

Did you ever once stop to think that you're not the only person using said sites?

Did you ever think that just perhaps other people like variety or have other tastes than you?

How about taking into consideration that these are PEOPLE that you're talking about and dismissing out-of-hand.

Denial forthcoming, but I'm sure plenty of people have looked at your profile and dismissed it right away or had a chuckle or two at your expense.

It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

My thoughts.

[TS Evelyn Summers]

I'm hungry...

[bluesoul]

Hi guys (in the non-gender specific sense!),
I've been searching through some ts and general dating sites and when searching I am constantly seeing TV results that i really don't want to see when I am seeking TS results.
Similarly, some tv's only like guys who like 'guy' type girls or actual guys and so a massive flaw continues to exist in the websites.
Who finds this an issue? Who thinks this should not be an issue?
I have very particular tastes and if i didn't have to filter through blatantly unsuitable prospects I would be on other sites or using the site VERY differently.
For the purposes of superceding discussion, I understand a 'ts' to be tits, and curves with cock against 'tv' which is generally man-in-wig.
Please people, offer your thoughts.

how about getting a tv and buying tits. problem solved. NEEEEEXXXT!!!!

[GrimFusion]

how about getting a tv and buying tits. problem solved. NEEEEEXXXT!!!!

...because all transvestites eventually become transsexuals? A pair of tits are the only thing that sets them apart? TV's who are part-time would appreciate having to hide their boobs when they aren't in drag? I don't think a proposition like that would work out too well.

[HarajukuDollxoxo]

Like Krissy said everyone has a place in the world. If they aren't your cup of tea then just pass them by. What may be your Courtney Love might be someone else's Eva Mendez. :whistle: Just because someone doesn't have certain work done, doesn't change what they identify as. It's all subjective honestly..

[bluesoul]

...because all transvestites eventually become transsexuals? A pair of tits are the only thing that sets them apart? TV's who are part-time would appreciate having to hide their boobs when they aren't in drag? I don't think a proposition like that would work out too well.

did you read the op? do so then try this again

[tsmounting]

Some people are missing my point here. This is no disrespect to TV's or anyone outside of my preference it just seems like an obvious opportunity for improvement in the search functions of these sites. no need to get chippy, if you assume a that unwelcome encounters with a TV equate to finding fat, old, ugly men then you really have missed my point. I should have expressed it more clearly.
Do people not think that a slight adjustment to the advanced search set up would allow for a better user experience when browsing these sites? Whether you prefer TV or TS it's surely better to be able to choose?...

[tsmounting]

Like Krissy said everyone has a place in the world. If they aren't your cup of tea then just pass them by. What may be your Courtney Love might be someone else's Eva Mendez. :whistle: Just because someone doesn't have certain work done, doesn't change what they identify as. It's all subjective honestly..

No issue with other people's preference, just would like to get to mine a little quick without having to sift through unsuitable prospects. Like you say, it's all subjective so the facility should allow everyone to search accurately for what they want no?

[littletwink]

What I like covers a broad spectrum and luckily for me, almost everything I'm into can be found on this site.

[GroobyKrissy]

Some people are missing my point here. This is no disrespect to TV's or anyone outside of my preference it just seems like an obvious opportunity for improvement in the search functions of these sites. no need to get chippy, if you assume a that unwelcome encounters with a TV equate to finding fat, old, ugly men then you really have missed my point. I should have expressed it more clearly.
Do people not think that a slight adjustment to the advanced search set up would allow for a better user experience when browsing these sites? Whether you prefer TV or TS it's surely better to be able to choose?...

Oh, I got your point. You asked for opinions and I gave mine. As you already stated, your OP wasn't well put, and had some demeaning implications to it.

My point is that you (and you're not alone in doing this) are probably going to get some unwelcome answers because you found it necessary to inject your own opinions (which some might read as quite demeaning to a segment of the greater 'T' community) into what should have been a simple and straightforward question:

Why don't some TS Dating sites do a better job defining and separating the TV's from the TS's? Period.

What you wrote basically sounds as if you ARE putting down TV's and basically saying they are beneath your dignity and thus, should be excluded from search results in TS Dating sites.

I would surmise that many (MANY) of the girls would wish that fat, old, sex-obsessed, etc. etc. men would be excluded as well.

My other point is this: If you start sifting out people because one person has such and such a preference, sooner or later, you're going to be left with a site so exclusive that it won't find an audience.

[amberskyi]

I don't see anything wrong with his post.some men want a woman and others don't.it's a matter of preference and his should be respected as well.
Ps. A tv is a man who has no intentions of ever transitioning and has no feelings of being a woman.I'm not talking about a trans woman in the early stages of her transition.there are guys out there that just dress up for fun or sexual excitement and i don't see why it's a big deal that he wants to avoid those guys

[GroobyKrissy]

I don't see anything wrong with his post.some men want a woman and others don't.it's a matter of preference and his should be respected as well.
Ps. A tv is a man who has no intentions of ever transitioning and has no feelings of being a woman.I'm not talking about a trans woman in the early stages of her transition.there are guys out there that just dress up for fun or sexual excitement and i don't see why it's a big deal that he wants to avoid those guys

Of course you don't... because I do.

What you're saying is COMPLETELY inaccurate. First, his opinion IS being respected... it is just being discussed. I don't get this whole sentiment that if you disagree with someone and want to discuss a point, that means you don't respect the person's opinion. It is this whole, "Ooh... let's not offend anyone" sentiment that seems to pervading society these days. Anyway...

Your second part is inaccurate... as is your definition (it seems to vary by location, etc.). But, for the sake of argument, I'll give it to you.

I'm just going to say this because it is true: You could be as 'TS' as 'TS' should be (whatever that means), but if you don't LOOK the part (i.e. - you don't 'PASS'), you'll basically be labeled as a CD/TV, especially if you're older, not a snappy dresser, or have some other distinguishable feature that is overtly 'manly'.

What you're not allowing for here, is crossover... WHICH EXISTS... for a variety of different reasons, some of which were already mentioned. The point is, from a dating site profile (which I believe was the OP's original wording), you can HARDLY make the snap distinction that a person is a CD/TV or a TS, for the simple fact that being TS is not based on looks AT ALL, nor can you accurately assess the person's motives and determination to "transition".

Now, I will concede this point: Obviously, there are people, like you say, who dress up just for fun. I'm not talking about those people or people who understand the terms and state their profile accurately.

But, life is just not that black and white. It has been proven time and time again that the general "TS" community (such as yourself) is unwilling to concede the point that crossover exists from the CD/TV/old/fat/don't-look-the-part/confused/can't transition for whatever reason side. I think that is sad.

[giovanni_hotel]

For guys strictly into TG women, the terms TV/CD/TG are NOT interchangeable and it's offensive when they're used that way.

This 'one is as good as the other' is just wrong on about every level.
I know some guys don't have a problem being with part timers for a one time sex hookup, but to me that's completely different than being with a trans-chick.

[GroobyKrissy]

For guys strictly into TG women, the terms TV/CD/TG are NOT interchangeable and it's offensive when they're used that way.

This 'one is as good as the other' is just wrong on about every level.
I know some guys don't have a problem being with part timers for a one time sex hookup, but to me that's completely different than being with a trans-chick.

This is a good example of the "There is no crossover" sentiment that I was speaking about.

So, let me press on this a little bit since I am already engaged in this thread.

What is YOUR personal definition of a CD/TV? TG?

What separates the two?

WHY is it offensive if a person who perhaps doesn't understand the full implications of using a certain term uses it?

TO WHOM is it offensive?

I'm not looking to have a long, drawn out psychological debate here, so keep in mind, my posts were in response to the OP's call for search separation on a TS related dating site, and should be kept in that context.

[amberskyi]

Of course you don't... because I do.

What you're saying is COMPLETELY inaccurate. First, his opinion IS being respected... it is just being discussed. I don't get this whole sentiment that if you disagree with someone and want to discuss a point, that means you don't respect the person's opinion. It is this whole, "Ooh... let's not offend anyone" sentiment that seems to pervading society these days. Anyway...

Your second part is inaccurate... as is your definition (it seems to vary by location, etc.). But, for the sake of argument, I'll give it to you.

I'm just going to say this because it is true: You could be as 'TS' as 'TS' should be (whatever that means), but if you don't LOOK the part (i.e. - you don't 'PASS'), you'll basically be labeled as a CD/TV, especially if you're older, not a snappy dresser, or have some other distinguishable feature that is overtly 'manly'.

What you're not allowing for here, is crossover... WHICH EXISTS... for a variety of different reasons, some of which were already mentioned. The point is, from a dating site profile (which I believe was the OP's original wording), you can HARDLY make the snap distinction that a person is a CD/TV or a TS, for the simple fact that being TS is not based on looks AT ALL, nor can you accurately assess the person's motives and determination to "transition".

Now, I will concede this point: Obviously, there are people, like you say, who dress up just for fun. I'm not talking about those people or people who understand the terms and state their profile accurately.

But, life is just not that black and white. It has been proven time and time again that the general "TS" community (such as yourself) is unwilling to concede the point that crossover exists from the CD/TV/old/fat/don't-look-the-part/confused/can't transition for whatever reason side. I think that is sad.

My definition on what it means to be a ts has nothing to do with looks but how the individual feels.it's not even my definition lol.look up transsexual and trans woman on wiki.a Trans woman FEELS like a woman inside.
Not every Trans woman is passable and some TVs are.the distinction lies in their head and hearts.

[giovanni_hotel]

It's the difference between fulltime and part time.

It's the difference between knowing underneath it all your total emotional/psychological/spiritual identity is a WOMAN versus someone who thinks it's fun to pretend to be a girl on Friday nights.

IRL there's really no comparison, but it is frustrating when you read on escort/dating sites that all different trans- categories are lumped together.

Like I said for some guys looking for just a hookup, if 'she' is pretty enough and functional, how that person self identifies after the fact is of no concern to them.

However on a site like HA, there have been multipage thread street fights because CDs and guys into CDs are calling trans-women really men and no so subtly suggest TG admirers are closeted.

I don't know how a cross dresser can call himself transgendered and not understand there's a difference. That's not stupidity. That's intentional IMO.
IMO when a CD tries to get over like that, it's all a part of a scam to ensnare trans-curious hetero men.

There was an expression a friend of mine used to live by on club night outs; if a woman is going to be dumb enough to ask, I'm going to be smart enough to lie.

This is exactly how I view TV/CDs who try to say they're transgendered.
Just be honest about it. Like I said, many guys are just attracted to the superficial femininity of perfume, makeup and clothes..and the genitalia. And if a TV can play the girl role in the bedroom, that's good enough.

[GroobyKrissy]

My definition on what it means to be a ts has nothing to do with looks but how the individual feels.it's not even my definition lol.look up transsexual and trans woman on wiki.a Trans woman FEELS like a woman inside.
Not every Trans woman is passable and some TVs are.the distinction lies in their head and hearts.

TOTAL COP OUT.

Again... in relation to the original post... So you can make that distinction simply by looking at someone's profile on a dating site?

You should become a psychic!

[amberskyi]

TOTAL COP OUT.

Again... in relation to the original post... So you can make that distinction simply by looking at someone's profile on a dating site?

You should become a psychic!

how is that a cop out.thats exactly what my original comment was:
"A tv is a man who has no intentions of ever transitioning and has no feelings of being a woman.I'm not talking about a trans woman in the early stages of her transition.there are guys out there that just dress up for fun or sexual excitement and i don't see why it's a big deal that he wants to avoid those guys"

i also made sure to point that i wasnt including trans woman who are in the early stages of their transition (i.e only dressing part time).dont use me to stand on some soap box.im pretty much saying that same stuff you are.

and of course you couldnt tell something like that just by looking at someone.having breast is a good indicator tho hahahaha (that was a joke for those of you without humour).you would need to talk to and get to know the person duh.which i guess would kinda make his point even more valid.it has to suck when you take all this time to know a chick just to find out that she really isnt a chick at all.

[GroobyKrissy]

It's the difference between fulltime and part time.

It's the difference between knowing underneath it all your total emotional/psychological/spiritual identity is a WOMAN versus someone who thinks it's fun to pretend to be a girl on Friday nights.

IRL there's really no comparison, but it is frustrating when you read on escort/dating sites that all different trans- categories are lumped together.

Like I said for some guys looking for just a hookup, if 'she' is pretty enough and functional, how that person self identifies after the fact is of no concern to them.

However on a site like HA, there have been multipage thread street fights because CDs and guys into CDs are calling trans-women really men and no so subtly suggest TG admirers are closeted.

I don't know how a cross dresser can call himself transgendered and not understand there's a difference. That's not stupidity. That's intentional IMO.
IMO when a CD tries to get over like that, it's all a part of a scam to ensnare trans-curious hetero men.

There was an expression a friend of mine used to live by on club night outs; if a woman is going to be dumb enough to ask, I'm going to be smart enough to lie.

This is exactly how I view TV/CDs who try to say they're transgendered.
Just be honest about it. Like I said, many guys are just attracted to the superficial femininity of perfume, makeup and clothes..and the genitalia. And if a TV can play the girl role in the bedroom, that's good enough.

I will take your points one by one.

FULLTIME / PART TIME
So, your opinion is that there IS NO TRULY TS person who has not, or can not transition (i.e. - remain "part time"). Or at least, the actual "transition" process is what partially defines a person as "TS"? That is pretty flawed. What is YOUR definition of this term, "transition"?

EMOTIONAL / P / S IDENTITY IS A WOMAN
This I would agree with, although your implying a definition of "woman" that is unstated, and in constant flux. So, what is your definition of the term, "WOMAN"?

DON'T KNOW HOW A CD CAN CALL HIMSELF TG
And, I don't know how an overweight, middle-aged, overly hairy, guy can describe himself as a "Silver haired, husky male who will keep you warm at night"... It is all about self-perception, and in some cases, actual confusion and ignorance. It is not ALWAYS intentional. Sure, there are cases as you stated, a point which I've already conceded, and not the people I'm speaking about.

THE REST
So, carried to the conclusion, you're OK with a CD/TV using the terms TS/TG as long as they're great at deception (i.e. - SAY they're transitioning and SAY they love Shania Twain) and look the part? I'm not really following how you state what you've written and then say, "Just be honest about it".

UNANSWERED QUESTION
So, YOU used the term, OFFENSIVE. I would still like to know, WHY is it offensive (using terms inaccurately)? Are you taking up an offense that doesn't belong to you or are you legitimately offended? I press this point because I think the term "offended" is so casually thrown around these days, and I would like to know just how what one person calls (or doesn't call) him/herself is actually OFFENSIVE.

[HarajukuDollxoxo]

No issue with other people's preference, just would like to get to mine a little quick without having to sift through unsuitable prospects. Like you say, it's all subjective so the facility should allow everyone to search accurately for what they want no?

To a degree yes. But if two girls identify as transexual and one hasn't started work and the other one has, is it fair to put the model under "crossdressers/tranvestites"?

[GroobyKrissy]

how is that a cop out.thats exactly what my original comment was:
"A tv is a man who has no intentions of ever transitioning and has no feelings of being a woman.I'm not talking about a trans woman in the early stages of her transition.there are guys out there that just dress up for fun or sexual excitement and i don't see why it's a big deal that he wants to avoid those guys"

i also made sure to point that i wasnt including trans woman who are in the early stages of their transition (i.e only dressing part time).dont use me to stand on some soap box.im pretty much saying that same stuff you are.

and of course you couldnt tell something like that just by looking at someone.having breast is a good indicator tho hahahaha (that was a joke for those of you without humour).you would need to talk to and get to know the person duh.which i guess would kinda make his point even more valid.it has to suck when you take all this time to know a chick just to find out that she really isnt a chick at all.

It is a cop out to state what you stated and then when it is challenged, say, "Oh... it's not even my definition," which in effect, is saying, "don't blame me for what I've written, blame the all-powerful and all-knowing Wiki". You should be able to defend your own statements based upon your own lines of reasoning.

I'm not standing on a soap box. I'm not preaching. I am responding to what has been stated, challenging it, and offering a different perspective. Again with the "if you offer a different point of view, you must be attacking me personally" thing... I DON'T GET THAT.

You are not saying the same stuff as me AT ALL. If that's what you think, then you've COMPLETELY misread and/or misunderstood my posts.

You've stated that there was nothing wrong with the OP. I've stated almost the opposite. Not sure how that is being missed. The OP is stating a point that search results in TS-related dating sites should be more thoroughly "weeded" so that those who "appear" (what other basis of judgement is there online?) "TV" are separated out. A statement which you've agreed with. My point is, ON WHAT BASIS and WHO MAKES that determination? You've basically just stated that you cannot determine motives and intent online without developing dialogue, effectively making my point more valid, not his.

[amberskyi]

When something is a fact or has a standard definition than it's not really an opinion is it.i don't really need to defend it.just point you in the right direction to get informed.
That's like saying it's my opinion that the earth rotates around the sun lol.

[GroobyKrissy]

When something is a fact or has a standard definition than it's not really an opinion is it.i don't really need to defend it.just point you in the right direction to get informed.
That's like saying it's my opinion that the earth rotates around the sun lol.

No. A pretty clear tangent here but hey, what the hell...

Wikipedia (your source), while containing trillions of actual facts, is nothing more than a collective of OPINIONS by different users aggregated and edited on the site itself. Some entries are 100% correct, while others contain errors, either by purpose or otherwise.

I am pretty well informed on topics related to the CD/TV/TS/TG communities... enough to know that there ARE PLENTY of differing thoughts and opinions by EXPERTS in the field regarding usage of terms.

The scientific FACT that the Earth rotates around the Sun is tangible. What you're postulating (motives and intent) are not. If you cannot support your own arguments with minimal usage of other persons' works, then you've really got to wonder if you've formulated an actual opinion at all, or are simple regurgitating (for Dino) what is assumed as correct or popular.

[amberskyi]

Than feel free to also check the DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) for what constitutes transsexualism and gender identity disorder.
Also wiki does regulate and edit their content.they'll shift out anything that can't be verified.

[LibertyHarkness]

the people that make the judgement for the searching would simply be the site owners .. its their site, their rules .. if people dont like it they can leave ..

If they only want TS that are in more further transition stages using the TS status then that is down to them .. though probably what i would do is have TS then sub TS cats ... Early Stage TS , Middle Stage TS, Post Op TS ... that way the OP would be able to search easier and everyone has a place for themselves ..

so the early stage TS dont have to be in with TV/CDs ...they are still in the Pre OP TS bracket but in a different cat ... that way people would be free to search the level of transition each person has ... so if some guys like the early stage look as seen on alot of porn sites then they can have that , if someone likes more surgeried up girls they can have that , if they want a CD/TV they can have that .. choices for all and making it faster for people to use .

and it would be down to the site owners/admin to make sure people dont stick themselves in the wrong cat.

[giovanni_hotel]

We all know that GroobyKrissy like to argue for the sport of it so I'm going to end my participation here.

This isn't complicated. CD/DQs know who they are. Early transition transgenders are who they are. And fulltime transwomen know who they are.

Krissy is being obtuse to confuse the point.
There isn't a sliding scale for TG women because CDs/DQs are mostly doing it for kicks and aren't transgendered in the way most of us use it on this board.
It would be like putting a GG escort who wears a strapon with clients in the same category as a female-to-male TG.

[GroobyKrissy]

Than feel free to also check the DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) for what constitutes transsexualism and gender identity disorder.
Also wiki does regulate and edit their content.they'll shift out anything that can't be verified.

Again, if you cannot support your own arguments with minimal usage of other persons' works, then you've really got to wonder if you've formulated an actual opinion at all, or are simply regurgitating what is assumed as correct or popular.

That's great that you can quote manuals and books and Wiki pages, but you've yet to show an actual thought process (in this thread) beyond them. The only opinion you stated was backtracked as a "Oh... not my definition... Wiki's!" statement when challenged. So, you've moved to a more scientific document to placate me. That's nice, but I am interested in seeing you put down in writing YOUR OWN opinions, and then owning those.

The medical / mental health field is also in constant flux, btw... As our collective human knowledge grows, documents like the DSMMD are updated as well. It was once pretty common knowledge that smoking is not harmful to you at all, according to the medical community.

[LibertyHarkness]

i am sure 99% of men using a Tranny dating site dont give a fuck about moral rights , and medical jargon .. they just want to get laid as easy as possible at end of day ..

and the site owners want to make as much money as possible .

[GroobyKrissy]

We all know that GroobyKrissy like to argue for the sport of it so I'm going to end my participation here.

This isn't complicated. CD/DQs know who they are. Early transition transgenders are who they are. And fulltime transwomen know who they are.

Krissy is being obtuse to confuse the point.
There isn't a sliding scale for TG women because CDs/DQs are mostly doing it for kicks and aren't transgendered in the way most of us use it on this board.
It would be like putting a GG escort who wears a strapon with clients in the same category as a female-to-male TG.

No. I like debate. I dislike arguing. There is a difference.

I think it is interesting that you casually throw out an opinion here but are unwilling to back it up with dialogue when challenged.

There is nothing "obtuse" in what I've stated (I don't think that means what you think it means). My questions to you were straightforward and pretty clear. My responses back were pretty straightforward and clear. Is it "obtuse" simply because I disagree with you and would like to challenge what you've stated? A little confused that you've suddenly run into someone who can actually think a bit and asks for answers that you can't give? I know... it's the stilettos. They are powerful things.

What isn't straightforward or clear is your response because you are unwilling to PUT DOWN IN WRITING what your true feelings are or the definitions behind them.

Interesting how now you interject DQ's into the mix, a pretty comical attempt to put some unflattering imagery into your statements.

I haven't EVER stated that there is a "sliding scale" for "TG women". If I have, please quote that for me.

Your last statement is SO LAUGHABLE. I don't even think I need to explain how that analogy doesn't even come close to holding up.

[amberskyi]

Again, if you cannot support your own arguments with minimal usage of other persons' works, then you've really got to wonder if you've formulated an actual opinion at all, or are simply regurgitating what is assumed as correct or popular.

That's great that you can quote manuals and books and Wiki pages, but you've yet to show an actual thought process (in this thread) beyond them. The only opinion you stated was backtracked as a "Oh... not my definition... Wiki's!" statement when challenged. So, you've moved to a more scientific document to placate me. That's nice, but I am interested in seeing you put down in writing YOUR OWN opinions, and then owning those.

The medical / mental health field is also in constant flux, btw... As our collective human knowledge grows, documents like the DSMMD are updated as well. It was once pretty common knowledge that smoking is not harmful to you at all, according to the medical community.

I've already stated opinion and than pointed people to documents that supported my opinion.i don't deal in redundancy.feel free to go back and re read if curious.

[GroobyKrissy]

I've already stated opinion and than pointed people to documents that supported my opinion.i don't deal in redundancy.feel free to go back and re read if curious.

OK, whatever. The timeline says differently but we're way off on a tangent now.

Your original "opinion" was not that (original or an opinion) as you clearly stated later on saying:

"[SIC]...it's not even my definition lol.look up transsexual and trans woman on wiki..."

I would suspect that both you and Giovanna_Hotel both think exactly the same thing but are unwilling to just come out and say it, or at least, have it in writing here that you feel that way:

You judge true Transsexuality on the basis of looks.

You may say otherwise to be PC, but those are your true feelings. As Giovanna_Hotel said, "Just be honest about it". How's that for someone else trying to discern motives and intent? Doesn't feel really great, does it?

[amberskyi]

OK, whatever. The timeline says differently but we're way off on a tangent now.

Your original "opinion" was not that (original or an opinion) as you clearly stated later on saying:

"[SIC]...it's not even my definition lol.look up transsexual and trans woman on wiki..."

I would suspect that both you and Giovanna_Hotel both think exactly the same thing but are unwilling to just come out and say it, or at least, have it in writing here that you feel that way:

You judge true Transsexuality on the basis of looks.

You may say otherwise to be PC, but those are your true feelings. As Giovanna_Hotel said, "Just be honest about it". How's that for someone else trying to discern motives and intent? Doesn't feel really great, does it?
And now you would put words in my mouth when everything I've written stated the exact opposite just so you can have something to really around.you should go into politics lol

[amberskyi]

also i saw what you tried to do there and im sure that you think it was incredibly clever and oh so smart but you havent proven a point.
what you did was completely ignored everything ive said and the intent in which i said it.thats not clever, some would consider it a form of virtual schizophrenia lol

[GroobyKrissy]

And now you would put words in my mouth when everything I've written stated the exact opposite just so you can have something to really around.you should go into politics lol

Well, as a good politician would say:
If you don't state your opinions, I'll state them for you.

The facts are, you haven't stated ANY actual opinions. Let me give you the opportunity to do so by asking two straightforward and direct questions (so as not to be obtuse):

What are YOUR qualifications for using the term 'TS' to describe yourself?

As an OUTSIDER, how do YOU determine if a person dressed in the opposite gender's clothing and describing themselves as 'TS' is, in fact, TS according to your above stated qualifications?

I am going to go take my dog for a walk so I'll be off for a while. Should give you plenty of time to formulate an answer.

[GroobyKrissy]

also i saw what you tried to do there and im sure that you think it was incredibly clever and oh so smart but you havent proven a point.
what you did was completely ignored everything ive said and the intent in which i said it.thats not clever, some would consider it a form of virtual schizophrenia lol

I have no idea to what you're referring to here. Clearly, you must think I am a lot cleverer than I actually am.

[amberskyi]

Well, as a good politician would say:
If you don't state your opinions, I'll state them for you.

The facts are, you haven't stated ANY actual opinions. Let me give you the opportunity to do so by asking two straightforward and direct questions (so as not to be obtuse):

What are YOUR qualifications for using the term 'TS' to describe yourself?

As an OUTSIDER, how do YOU determine if a person dressed in the opposite gender's clothing and describing themselves as 'TS' is, in fact, TS according to your above stated qualifications?

once and for all in my own words a transsexaul is a person whos feels like woman on the inside and has had these feelings most of their life.sorry if my opinion coincides with certain "facts".
i wouldnt judge on someone on whether or not theyre a ts on looks.i would have to get to know the person.shit my mailman could be a ts who just hasnt transitioned yet (or visibly) for all i know.
now im kinda done with this convo.i suspect that you just want to debate for the sake of it like another member said.normally that would be all well in good (i love to exchange ideas,opinions etc) but in this case we're just going in circles and as ive stated before im not fond of redundancy.

[GroobyKrissy]

once and for all in my own words a transsexaul is a person whos feels like woman on the inside and has had these feelings most of their life.sorry if my opinion coincides with certain "facts".
i wouldnt judge on someone on whether or not theyre a ts on looks.i would have to get to know the person.shit my mailman could be a ts who just hasnt transitioned yet (or visibly) for all i know.
now im kinda done with this convo.i suspect that you just want to debate for the sake of it like another member said.normally that would be all well in good (i love to exchange ideas,opinions etc) but in this case we're just going in circles and as ive stated before im not fond of redundancy.

OK, well there it is in writing. Was that so difficult?

Of course, you're going to jump on the Giovanna_Hotel bandwagon of, ...Krissy just likes to cause trouble and be obtuse... It is often the response of people who have their beliefs challenged. So, don't go saying that you love to exchange ideas and opinions. Truth is, you love exchanging ideas and opinions with people WHO AGREE WITH YOU.

I love good debate because it causes me to think and rethink ideas. I welcome ALL points of view, even those contrary to mine, but I also don't have a problem pointing out flaws in logic when they exist. That is the nature of DEBATE... sometimes you're just wrong... and that's fine. Admit it and move on. ANYWAY...

I have no problem at all if your opinions happen to coincide with other peoples' published opinions. Mine do as well. So, let's take your own answers and apply them to the original post.

So, since a Transsexual is simply "...a person who FEELS like a woman on the inside and has had these feelings most of their life...", we can agree that anyone using the term TS on a dating site, should have those feelings. Yes?

BUT, since you "...wouldn't judge on someone on whether or not they're a ts on looks.i would have to get to know the person..." we can also agree that separating and marking persons on TS-related dating sites as "TV" when they use the term "TS" as a descriptor cannot be accurately done since you have not spent the time and energy to "...get to know the person". YES?

The conclusion is that you DO, in fact, disagree with the original post, by your own answers and admissions. If you're being honest above, your position would be that since you have no way of accurately knowing whether someone is truly "TS" on a dating site, the act of separating and segregating them out would be based on LOOKS alone... which was my original point (It should not be done like that).

So, why post: "I don't see anything wrong with his post." and then go on to basically disparage the TV population???

If you truly love exchanging ideas and opinions, keep an open and accepting dialogue and learn to admit when you haven't thought something through instead of shutting it down when someone challenges your beliefs.

[sophiebendable]

Don't have time to read through all this crap, but I seriously abhor all that "true transsexual" nonsense. All that matters is what gender someone identifies with, not their body or what medical diagnoses they have obtained. Many trans women are part time because they don't really have a choice given the circumstances in their lives or just haven't figured things out yet.

That said, the majority of transvestites identify as men. They are comfortable with their birth assigned sex, they just like to wear women's clothes sometimes. Therefore, while I acknowledge some fluidity, I do actually find it offensive to lump the two together by default. So, although I've read a lot of fucked up shit on this thread, I don't think there's anything wrong with what the OP was trying to say.

[amberskyi]

OK, well there it is in writing. Was that so difficult?

Of course, you're going to jump on the Giovanna_Hotel bandwagon of, ...Krissy just likes to cause trouble and be obtuse... It is often the response of people who have their beliefs challenged. So, don't go saying that you love to exchange ideas and opinions. Truth is, you love exchanging ideas and opinions with people WHO AGREE WITH YOU.

I love good debate because it causes me to think and rethink ideas. I welcome ALL points of view, even those contrary to mine, but I also don't have a problem pointing out flaws in logic when they exist. That is the nature of DEBATE... sometimes you're just wrong... and that's fine. Admit it and move on. ANYWAY...

I have no problem at all if your opinions happen to coincide with other peoples' published opinions. Mine do as well. So, let's take your own answers and apply them to the original post.

So, since a Transsexual is simply "...a person who FEELS like a woman on the inside and has had these feelings most of their life...", we can agree that anyone using the term TS on a dating site, should have those feelings. Yes?

BUT, since you "...wouldn't judge on someone on whether or not they're a ts on looks.i would have to get to know the person..." we can also agree that separating and marking persons on TS-related dating sites as "TV" when they use the term "TS" as a descriptor cannot be accurately done since you have not spent the time and energy to "...get to know the person". YES?

The conclusion is that you DO, in fact, disagree with the original post, by your own answers and admissions. If you're being honest above, your position would be that since you have no way of accurately knowing whether someone is truly "TS" on a dating site, the act of separating and segregating them out would be based on LOOKS alone... which was my original point (It should not be done like that).

So, why post: "I don't see anything wrong with his post." and then go on to basically disparage the TV population???

If you truly love exchanging ideas and opinions, keep an open and accepting dialogue and learn to admit when you haven't thought something through instead of shutting it down when someone challenges your beliefs.
Who said the criteria would have to be on looks.why not an interview or referral process?

[GroobyKrissy]

Don't have time to read through all this crap, but I seriously abhor all that "true transsexual" nonsense. All that matters is what gender someone identifies with, not their body or what medical diagnoses they have obtained. Many trans women are part time because they don't really have a choice given the circumstances in their lives or just haven't figured things out yet.

That said, the majority of transvestites identify as men. They are comfortable with their birth assigned sex, they just like to wear women's clothes sometimes. Therefore, while I acknowledge some fluidity, I do actually find it offensive to lump the two together by default. So, although I've read a lot of fucked up shit on this thread, I don't think there's anything wrong with what the OP was trying to say.

OK, since you will not take the time to actually read through the crap, let me challenge you on this...

Would you have a problem with a genetically born female stating that they find it offensive that most (educated) Transsexuals refer to themselves as "women"? Would you challenge that statement if it was posted here? My guess is that you would. If not, I probably don't need to explain why your argument is full of holes.

I would agree that the OP was TRYING to say something very simple but ended up stating something completely incorrect, in my opinion. I've already conceded that point in the crap somewhere. I agree with the sentiment (however unrealistic), just not the WAY it was stated.

[GroobyKrissy]

Who said the criteria would have to be on looks.why not an interview or referral process?

C'mon... it is unrealistic to do so. I thought that would be a gimme so I didn't even go there.

You cannot possibly expect that every TS-related dating site is going to spend the time and resources to personally (It would have to be in person since you could pretty easily just lie on a questionnaire... and everyone knows profiles are 100% accurate, right?) interview all persons who mark the "TS" box instead of the "CD/TV" box...

Like I said, thought that was pretty much understood.

[sophiebendable]

OK, since you will not take the time to actually read through the crap, let me challenge you on this...

Would you have a problem with a genetically born female stating that they find it offensive that most (educated) Transsexuals refer to themselves as "women"? Would you challenge that statement if it was posted here? My guess is that you would. If not, I probably don't need to explain why your argument is full of holes.

I would agree that the OP was TRYING to say something very simple but ended up stating something completely incorrect, in my opinion. I've already conceded that point in the crap somewhere. I agree with the sentiment (however unrealistic), just not the WAY it was stated.

Well what part of his phrasing in particular did you find disparaging towards transvestites?

In my mind, lumping me in with male crossdressers is actually a product of people thinking I shouldn't be included with the rest of the women (which is obviously how it works on all dating sites not designed specifically for tg people).

[sophiebendable]

Who said the criteria would have to be on looks.why not an interview or referral process?

You're kidding, right? That kind of shit does happen in real life to determine whether we have access to medical care. That's why Christine Jorgensen was originally turned down for SRS because she wore pants to the interview. The scrutiny was so terrifying to me that I waited to get on hormones until I had access to a clinic that doesn't work like that and just has you sign a consent form. Again, the only way to determine gender is based on how someone identifies themself.

[MsDazzler]

When I dressed part-time prior to transitoning full time and being on hormones currently, I did deny that I was transgender and labeled myself as a gay cross-dresser.

But I came to the realization that I was not doing it for fun, but because I truly wanted to present myself as a woman, matching what is inside. I only identified as gay because I liked men, but not women. Then I was able to get access to hormones and start my transition away from my family after I got my masters and did not need to rely on them for financial support (a huge reason why I delayed transition because I REALLY wanted my masters and avoid becoming an escort or doing porn because my family withdrew their financial support due to coming out earlier). So, now I am a full-time, preop, and straight TG (although I actually just define myself as a woman, but for semantics, I acqueise to the label of TS/TG).

My point was, I guess, that I did at one time identify as a crossdresser, and guys who were just hooking up did not give a fly about that as long as I looked pretty and passable. And I was wearing a WIG at that time, so basically back then I was a dude in a wig, but because I looked beautiful and passable, they did not care.

A hook up is a hook up, so I think that is why there is no distinction for TS/TV/CD, preop, etc in search engines on sex websites because if men visit those websites due to being horny, they will not give a fly about those labels as long as the girl looks passable and pretty.

[GroobyKrissy]

Well what part of his phrasing in particular did you find disparaging towards transvestites?

In my mind, lumping me in with male crossdressers is actually a product of people thinking I shouldn't be included with the rest of the women (which is obviously how it works on all dating sites not designed specifically for tg people).

Let us rewind.

The OP is postulating that TS dating sites themselves or users (or some higher authority) should have the all-knowing capabilities of separating out the TS (for the purposes of this conversation, defined by Amberski as those who FEEL the are women and have felt that way for the majority of their lives) population from the TV (defined as those dressing in women's clothing out of pure sexual thrill) population ending up in crystal clear search results.

In order to accomplish that, you would have to:
Accurately judge those who are CD/TV versus those who are TS.

Because that would be nearly impossible to do (stated in my previous post), the ONLY viable alternative would be make the determination based upon looks, which ends up being a "ewww...that person has a square jaw, or mustache, or doesn't look the part, or, etc. etc.

Asking for those lines to be drawn is, IMO, in and of itself, disparaging because you're making a judgement on people you know nothing about, based on looks. I thought it was implied in the crap somewhere along the way that I have a problem with the "based on looks" and who is doing the judging parts, which is almost impossible to get around when it comes to separating the CD/TV crowd from the TS crowd on something like a dating site.

[GroobyKrissy]

When I dressed part-time prior to transitoning full time and being on hormones currently, I did deny that I was transgender and labeled myself as a gay cross-dresser.

But I came to the realization that I was not doing it for fun, but because I truly wanted to present myself as a woman, matching what is inside. I only identified as gay because I liked men, but not women. Then I was able to get access to hormones and start my transition away from my family after I got my masters and did not need to rely on them for financial support (a huge reason why I delayed transition because I REALLY wanted my masters and avoid becoming an escort or doing porn because my family withdrew their financial support due to coming out earlier). So, now I am a full-time, preop, and straight TG (although I actually just define myself as a woman, but for semantics, I acqueise to the label of TS/TG).

My point was, I guess, that I did at one time identify as a crossdresser, and guys who were just hooking up did not give a fly about that as long as I looked pretty and passable. And I was wearing a WIG at that time, so basically back then I was a dude in a wig, but because I looked beautiful and passable, they did not care.

A hook up is a hook up, so I think that is why there is no distinction for TS/TV/CD, preop, etc in search engines on sex websites because if men visit those websites due to being horny, they will not give a fly about those labels as long as the girl looks passable and pretty.

And finally... an honest person. Kudos.

[sophiebendable]

The OP is postulating that TS dating sites themselves or users (or some higher authority) should have the all-knowing capabilities of separating out the TS (for the purposes of this conversation, defined by Amberski as those who FEEL the are women and have felt that way for the majority of their lives) population from the TV (defined as those dressing in women's clothing out of pure sexual thrill) population ending up in crystal clear search results.


Oh, that is not how I interpreted that at all. And yeah, it would be pretty fucked up. I guess I haven't checked out many transgender dating sites, but I assumed TG people could check a box saying TS or TV and he was just saying that admirers should be able to search based on that criterion. I was thinking about sites like Craigslist and Eros that do just lump us all together.

[GroobyKrissy]

Oh, that is not how I interpreted that at all. And yeah, it would be pretty fucked up. I guess I haven't checked out many transgender dating sites, but I assumed TG people could check a box saying TS or TV and he was just saying that admirers should be able to search based on that criterion. I was thinking about sites like Craigslist and Eros that do just lump us all together.

Well, I would admit, I am making some assumptions about the original post as well, which I also admit, is open to a lot of speculation. That is why I felt it wasn't worded well. I am taking the OP at his word that "dating site" means "dating site" not "escort site".

I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that a dedicated ESCORT SITE should have some sort of process in place to separate the two, for the safety of the escorts more than anything.

Perhaps, I am just old fashioned or not hip enough to know that "dating site" is code for "escort site".

[sophiebendable]

Well, I would admit, I am making some assumptions about the original post as well, which I also admit, is open to a lot of speculation. That is why I felt it wasn't worded well. I am taking the OP at his word that "dating site" means "dating site" not "escort site".

I would WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that a dedicated ESCORT SITE should have some sort of process in place to separate the two, for the safety of the escorts more than anything.

Perhaps, I am just old fashioned or not hip enough to know that "dating site" is code for "escort site".

Well *technically* Craigslist is for dating since they closed down the "erotic services" section and it does seem like about half of the t4m ads use it that way.

[GroobyKrissy]

Well *technically* Craigslist is for dating since they closed down the "erotic services" section and it does seem like about half of the t4m ads use it that way.

*sigh*

Those were the days. I think CL paid for college ;)

[innocentbychoice]

Hi Girls (in the specifically gender sense!),

I've been searching through some general dating sites and when searching I am constantly seeing fat, old men results that I really don't want to see when I am seeking totally hot, rich, perfect men.

Similarly, some guys only like girls who will, like, take care of them sexually, and so a massive flaw continues to exist in the websites.

Who finds this an issue? Who thinks this should not be an issue?

I have very particular tastes and if I didn't have to waste my time being propositioned by blatantly unsuitable prospects, I'd probably be married and be living the perfect life by now.

For the purposes of [sic] superceding discussion, I understand a person who describes himself as a "man" to be height and weight proportionate, with a full head of hair, plenty of muscles, and of course, rich. Others need not apply.

OK... doesn't the above sound totally vapid and self-absorbed?

Did you ever once stop to think that you're not the only person using said sites?

Did you ever think that just perhaps other people like variety or have other tastes than you?

How about taking into consideration that these are PEOPLE that you're talking about and dismissing out-of-hand.

Denial forthcoming, but I'm sure plenty of people have looked at your profile and dismissed it right away or had a chuckle or two at your expense.

It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

My thoughts.

That was awesome.

[innocentbychoice]

Of course you don't... because I do.

What you're saying is COMPLETELY inaccurate. First, his opinion IS being respected... it is just being discussed. I don't get this whole sentiment that if you disagree with someone and want to discuss a point, that means you don't respect the person's opinion. It is this whole, "Ooh... let's not offend anyone" sentiment that seems to pervading society these days. Anyway...

Your second part is inaccurate... as is your definition (it seems to vary by location, etc.). But, for the sake of argument, I'll give it to you.

I'm just going to say this because it is true: You could be as 'TS' as 'TS' should be (whatever that means), but if you don't LOOK the part (i.e. - you don't 'PASS'), you'll basically be labeled as a CD/TV, especially if you're older, not a snappy dresser, or have some other distinguishable feature that is overtly 'manly'.

What you're not allowing for here, is crossover... WHICH EXISTS... for a variety of different reasons, some of which were already mentioned. The point is, from a dating site profile (which I believe was the OP's original wording), you can HARDLY make the snap distinction that a person is a CD/TV or a TS, for the simple fact that being TS is not based on looks AT ALL, nor can you accurately assess the person's motives and determination to "transition".

Now, I will concede this point: Obviously, there are people, like you say, who dress up just for fun. I'm not talking about those people or people who understand the terms and state their profile accurately.

But, life is just not that black and white. It has been proven time and time again that the general "TS" community (such as yourself) is unwilling to concede the point that crossover exists from the CD/TV/old/fat/don't-look-the-part/confused/can't transition for whatever reason side. I think that is sad.

Very well put. I'm liking the way you express your ideas Krissy.

[GroobyKrissy]

Very well put. I'm liking the way you express your ideas Krissy.

Thanks, Hon. I've been out walking in the storm that we're having here in Portland and clearing my head :) I am soaked to the bone now :) Time for a nice, long bath :)

[tsmounting]

That's really opened my eyes to the different and often conflicting issues of categorisation for the purpose of an effective search function and 'labelling' for women 'in transition' or fully transitioned women who will never 'PASS' but need an environment of acceptance where they can live as they feel without judegment etc.
My personal preference does not reflect any broader views on what is more or less desirable/good, it's just what I like which is obviously different to other people and so my 'OP' was just to do with what general opinions were on improving website search functions for individual tastes, not value-judgments or semantics.
Anyway, please keep your opinions coming and happy rimming people. :salad

[GroobyKrissy]

That's really opened my eyes to the different and often conflicting issues of categorisation for the purpose of an effective search function and 'labelling' for women 'in transition' or fully transitioned women who will never 'PASS' but need an environment of acceptance where they can live as they feel without judegment etc.
My personal preference does not reflect any broader views on what is more or less desirable/good, it's just what I like which is obviously different to other people and so my 'OP' was just to do with what general opinions were on improving website search functions for individual tastes, not value-judgments or semantics.
Anyway, please keep your opinions coming and happy rimming people. :salad

You sound like a very decent Bloke who just articulated something a little bit inartfully. As I stated in my second reply to you, you're certainly not the first, and most definitely not going to be the last.

I hope you understand that I wasn't attacking your personally with my points and I actually agree that, in a perfect world, everyone would fit into nice, neat categories on TS-related dating sites so in search functions, each Charming would immediately find his Snow White. Unfortunately, as long as human nature exists, that won't ever happen.

I appreciate your willingness to be open-minded and I hope you will continue to post as reading through your threads has been entertaining.