Amber, do you even read what I write?
Printable View
Amber, do you even read what I write?
ClaroQuote:
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
Stuff and nonsense. Prove it. You won't be able to and you know it. Men are simply not becoming more feminine biologically; any apparent move in this direction is due only to a lessening of societal pressure and nothing biological about it. But crack on, son, convincingly and scientifically prove your case and I might give it some thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
“Son”? MacShreach, I’m a 54 year old man soon to be a grand-father: you know what you can do with your patronizing… “Nonsense”? How would you know? If I “prove it scientifically” you “will give it some thought”? Why? are you my or anybody’s judge in front of the Eternal or something? And what are you ever proving “scientifically” yourself, or even just backing up with some references, MacShreach? Get real, “son”…Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
Of course I can’t prove it “scientifically”! Researches in the field of transsexuality are already in themselves so poor and so few it’s an outrage!
My English is not great, sure. “Claro”, you say? Hey! man, English is not my mother tongue nor is it my usual language of expression; I’m not going to apologize for that; I do my best and I just expect a minimum of efforts on your part to understand what I’m saying and to gallantly try not to be an asshole about it, something anybody owe anyone else even of the same cultural origin; we call that politeness and decency. Is that too fucking much to ask? Just at the very least take the time to read what I write, would you?
All I am trying to do is present some elements that appeared not just interesting to me, but really fascinating and even a little bit scary, as far as I’m concerned. I never pretended to possess some absolute truth; I was just expecting an exchange on the precise subject I was addressing, which seem obviously impossible in the crazy context of this forum –something I admit I’m starting to seriously tire from. What the fuck is this supposed to be: a tournament of egos?
This being said, there is definitely, in my opinion, strong scientific facts that could support the phenomenon I’m referring to. And in my opinion, there’s chances transsexuality in itself as a biological reality is also related to these facts. Of course, there always was intersexuation; we now know several conditions that cause several types of intersexuation. Androgen Insensivity Syndrome we know is the most important one. There are some others, like the Turner Syndrome for instance, which is a much more serious condition in medical terms in this case. Many cases of intersexuation at different levels were certainly the result of simple biological divergences, which in the end is the basis for life’s diversity. We know there always also was, everywhere around the world, transsexualism, men with the desire to live as women. Yet, you have to admit the scarcity of historical testimonies strongly indicates it still was in every society a relatively marginal phenomenon (not homosexuality, of course).
(By the way, we have to be careful not to confuse representations of Hermaphrodite in the Ancient World, a purely mythological figure, with intersexed children. Unfortunately, in most Ancient societies, these children were seen as bad omen or freaks, and were usually killed at birth. I direct you to Luc Brisson for information on the topic, an eminent expert on the Ancient World and especially on Greek society –from which the myth of Hermaphrodite comes-, and mainly his book entitled “Le Sexe incertain. Androginie et hermaphrodisme dans l’Antiquité Gréco-Romaine”. Don’t know if it is translated, but it would be something like: “The Uncertain Sex. Androgyny and Hermaphrodism in Greco-Roman Antiquity”.)
Your assertion according to which any of this is purely sociological is totally absurd and completely contradicted by every studies on transsexuality, which most often starts at an age too early to only be the result of constraint, and with such a profound behaviour and sense of self that it wouldn’t make any sense; completely in contradiction with the testimonies of parents and witnesses of such behaviour in its development. Besides, in itself, this opinion is quite shocking, because it would in turn mean that transsexuality is purely psychological and thus could be “treated”, that it is just in these women’s mind and has no more profound basis. On the contrary every indications points in the direction of a biological origin. Several studies, yet I admit not conclusive so far, seems to show that a part of the brain in the region of the hypothalamus, a set of glands producing many hormones related to sexual functions, is similar between women and M2F, and dissimilar in men. Most studies I have read on the subject have personally convinced me that transsexuality is a level of intersexuality, and therefore a biological condition.
On the other hand, you’re certainly right in saying that there is more social acceptance. But by denying the so incredibly obvious fact that there is so many cases of transsexualism today, compare to what we know from the past is like saying we should believe what you think rather than base ourselves on anything. If there had been as many cases in the past, we would have some records, it would inevitably have been told somewhere -that men felt in such numbers to be women! You hear the amount of dismay and suffering these women goes through today, you can take account of their testimonies (depression, suicide, total desperation): such a condition would have produced at least a certain numbers of accounts in literature and in art. The reports we have are very limited on the contrary, and we have to rely on this relative absence of data to conclude anything, not on the belief that there could have been more than reported! In other words, we have to use what we have or don’t have at our disposal as an argument, not what we think we know.
That the prevalence of transsexualism is rising might indeed be only an impression; I don’t believe so, but I admit that possibility. We do live in a world in which information has never been so munificent and accessible. But what some sociological studies suggest is quite an overwhelming presence of transsexuality in our world today. Olyslager and Conway presented a paper at the WPATH 20th International Symposium (2007), that seems to indicate that the prevalence of M2F could be of an order of 1 in as low as 1000! That’s just amazing, no? And all in a ratio of 1 F2M for 3 M2F, to 1 F2M for 8 M2F; which could possibly be explained by a simple biological variation –which would results in equal numbers- and a biological cause in itself –which could explain the greater number of feminizations. But if it wasn’t enough, the precise impression I was trying to relate, here, was that nowhere in any photographic records of at least the first half of the 20th century, do you ever see any men looking so feminine as some men today, which female fashion models (males!) are for instance showing. This is all I wanted to share and to exchange on… This is the simple remark I originally made.
But since you now want “scientific proofs” of that (?), I will try to get you at least some arguments based on biology. A phenomenon that has been studied by biologist in recent years is that of the feminisation and infertility of the faunistic population around many water sources, little rivers etc, especially surrounding cities. Cases of intersex fishes, unbalanced ratio of female compared to males, infertile males, and even late sex reversal, etc. Each and every one of the studies link the phenomenon to substances we call xenoestrogens. It’s a number of substances widely used in industrial production which molecules imitates natural estrogens (natural female hormones). The phtalates, present in every type of plastic (from baby bottles to kitchen appliances, plastic plates, electronic appliances, glasses and cups) are the most common, but a great number are created and released into the environement. Here is a list from Wiki, with the “products” that contains them:
- alkylphenols (intermediate chemicals used in the manufacture of other chemicals)
- atrazine (weedkiller)
- 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC) (sunscreen lotions)
- butylated hydroxyanisole, BHA (food preservative)
- bisphenol A (monomer for polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resin; antioxidant in plasticizers)
- dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (one of the breakdown products of DDT)
- dieldrin (banned insecticide)
- DDT (banned insecticide)
- endosulfan (widely banned insecticide)
- erythrosine, FD&C Red No. 3 (E127)
- ethinylestradiol (combined oral contraceptive pill) (released into the environment as a xenoestrogen)[35]
- heptachlor (restricted insecticide)
- lindane, hexachlorocyclohexane (restricted insecticide)
- metalloestrogens (a class of inorganic xenoestrogens)
- methoxychlor (banned insecticide)
- nonylphenol and derivatives (industrial surfactants; emulsifiers for emulsion polymerization; laboratory detergents; pesticides)
- pentachlorophenol (restricted general biocide and wood preservative)
- polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs (banned; formerly used in electrical oils, lubricants, adhesives, paints)
- parabens (lotions)
- phthalates (plasticizers)
- DEHP (plasticizer for PVC)
- Propyl gallate (used to protect oils and fats in products from oxidation)
(Here’s the link on that one: Xenoestrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). These substances are not biodegradable and rejects remain in the environement for long periods of time, are consumed by small animals and eventually often by human beings. Biologist even think that water might be contaminated as women urine, released in water, is often filled with superfluous amounts of oestrogens. We used to think only huge amounts of xenoestrogens could affect an organism. We understand today that even infinitesimal amounts can have a certain effect. Here are some other links; once again, my English might not be sufficient to explain properly, and besides, I am no biologist:
http://www.energeticnutrition.com/vi...l#.UG0XwZhmJIc
http://suite101.com/article/list-of-...rogens-a205523
http://www.natural-health-for-fertil...oestrogen.html
http://www.researchgrantdatabase.com...in-male-trout/
http://www.alive.com/articles/view/20187/xenoestrogens
http://www.katolenyardley.com/Xenoestrogens.pdf
We know the effects on male are multiple, and many in the range of different medical affections; but they obviously also have feminizing effects as well. And these effects can be felt from pregnancy, and affect the foetus (sorry for the redundancy).
One more thing that has been bothering biologist around the world in the last 10 to 15 years is the alarming rate at which the average male sperm count is decreasing. It is said to be half of what it was 70 years ago. Studies for the moment are not conclusive (as always –and it is ever more difficult since it is targeting substances produced by large corporations), but several seem to point out toward the xenoestrogens once again. Here are the links to some studies on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566659/
http://www.asiaandro.com/archive/1008-682X/2/263.htm
We therefore see a general tendency, here, don’t we?
What strikes me particularly is that the photographic records from our society seem to show a parallel between the apparition of more and more feminine men and the growth of industrial production and consumption (and therefore garbage accumulation). I know in this case it is a highly unscientific observation, but any attentive review of pictures surrounding the topic, mainly female impersonation, will appear, without any doubt in my mind, as something pretty surprising. There is no possible comparison between burlesque female impersonators of the beginning of the century and the quite passable cabaret female impersonators from after the 50s (many of which were t-women and transitioned eventually), and the more you go forward in time, the more striking it is of course.
Now is there really a link between all these facts? How the hell could I possibly know?! I’m simply taking notes of all of these elements and bringing them together. This to me, seem to make sense from an outside perspective (I repeat that I’m of course not a biologist). Everything seem to point in a direction which is that of a certain feminization of males, especially in the industrialized countries, and a greater number of cases of intersexuation (I’m including here transsexualism). The biological data seem to corroborate my personal, subjective impressions on the subject, and I’m in fact very surprised no one has ever put these elements together the way I do here.
You might not yet find any of this “scientifically” satisfactory, MacShreach, and you can keep on arguing endlessly if you want. But I think still calling it nonsense would be dishonest on your part. You have data as “scientific” as they can possibly be under the circumstances.
me too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4v-zexx8MQuote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
we are getting BACK ON POINT
The Tranny Chaser Chaser
Gay guys who like straight guys who like guys dressed as girls
I’m no stranger to the walk of shame, but this is the first morning I’ve ridden the R train into Manhattan with metallic blue eye shadow smeared across the upper third of my face like a sloppy Warhol silkscreen. I’ve spent the prior evening at a bacchanal called Eden Underground: a sex party for transsexuals and their admirers in Park Slope that just rang in its one-year anniversary. What brought me to the polymorphously perverse bi-monthly Friday night was a search for gender identity’s Yeti: gay men attracted to the straight men who are attracted to transsexuals—the tranny chaser chaser.
http://media.villagevoice.com/the-tr...6694416.40.jpg
COJO ArtJuggernaut
At one sex party, things get confusing.
At the party, plenty of hot, blue-collar trade search for transsexuals. Those gay men who cross-dress solely to chase these guys are called everything from “deceitful” to “blackface,” but “midlife crisis” probably comes closest. They are going after what they can’t have—dressed as men, anyway. Sweetie, Eden’s large-and-in-charge mistress of ceremonies, sums it up as cruising for men they “could never get wearing a pair of jeans on a Saturday night.”
José Muñoz, an NYU-based academic who writes extensively on gender, asks, “So they’re gay men who turn to drag to get straight-acting or butch guys?” adding, “It fits into so many fantasies of the predatory homosexual out to prey on nominally straight men.” Muñoz mentions those turn-of-the-century, New York sexual superstars along the Bowery called “fairies” that George Chauncey details in Gay New York. Many heterosexual men “alternated between male and female sexual partners,” Chauncey writes, but the fairies, those willing to oblige these working-class men, “simply offered to perform certain sexual acts, especially fellation, which many straight men enjoyed but many women (even many prostitutes) were loath to perform.”
The first thing to get one’s head around is that most of the tranny chasers themselves are straight. Bruce, a 42-year-old truck driver and Eden attendee, demonstrates his macho bona fides by opening a beer bottle with his teeth. “I’m from Long Island,” he jokingly explains of his countrified ways. “We didn’t have can openers in the woods.”
Folks like Bruce make headlines when they have famous names like Eddie Murphy or (according to transgender prostitute Toni Newman) L.L. Cool J. Soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo was reportedly caught with three transgender prostitutes. Even Matt Lauer and Gavin Rossdale, Gwen Stefani’s husband, have allegedly taken walks on the wild side. Married New York GOP ex-Congressman Christopher Lee resigned after Gawker published a Craigslist ad featuring a shirtless photo of him with the headline “Sexy Classy guy for passable TS/CD – m4t – 39 (Cap Hill)”: That’s “TS,” as in transsexual; “CD,” meaning cross-dressing; and “m4t,” male-for-transsexual.
At first blush, the codified nature of the party evokes a parochial high school prom more than a sex party. In the AstroTurfed changing area just off the entrance, a sign prohibits touching without asking permission first. Not that the reminder is necessary for Eden Underground’s attendees, who prefer to engage in “mini-dates” before walking off arm-in-arm to a quiet corner to get it on.
In the front room, where most of the socializing takes place, a leggy transsexual in tight satin pleated shorts crosses the room while Lil’ Kim’s “How Many Licks?” is playing, catches a stripper’s pole with her arm, spins to the ground, and suggestively raises and lowers her high heel. A young stud bounds up from his seat and opens his shirt to display an overly tattooed torso. She nods approvingly, runs a gloved hand over his toned abs, and they wander off together.
There’s nothing overtly gay about this party: Even oral sex is sheathed in condoms, and the industrial stench of poppers is absent. Michael Wakefield, who lives upstairs and runs the space, often attends as his alter ego, Pickles. “Some of these guys are bisexual,” Wakefield says of the trans admirers, “but most are straight-identified and the straight-identified ones are definitely not part of the queer community.” Even so, “These are all chicks with dicks,” he hastens to add. “That’s what the guys are there for. If they want a girl with a vagina, they’ll get a girl.”
Elden, a straight attendee, agrees. “Pre-op transsexuals—what are there?” he rhetorically asks. “Three of them?” We’re talking outside, where I’m back in male attire (except for that eye make-up). If I were still in drag, he assures me, he’d most definitely fuck me. So why is he willing to fuck a gay man in drag, but not any of the men he identified as gay back in the party? And why do the gay guys lusting after guys like Elden get cold feet about doing what would attract this straight trade in the first place—dressing as a woman?
“Most gay guys are really drag-phobic,” Wakefield points out. “So a lot of them don’t even see it as an option. They just won’t come back. I had a friend who came to the party as a gay guy and got no action because the focus is on the trannies.”
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-...chaser-chaser/
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-...chaser-chaser/
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-...chaser-chaser/
http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-...chaser-chaser/
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge
Yes, it does happen. There's a lot of straight men who will fuck a guy or get blown by one as long as he's fem enough. This is pretty common and goes back a long time, actually.
Psychologically speaking, I think it has to do with the domination aspect that seems inherent in the social construct of Western male heterosexuality.
There's really nothing new about highly androgynous males. It's just that it's becoming more acceptable in the West and the fashion world has latched onto it. It's just an example of changing trends. It goes back for thousands of years.
Personally, I love androgyny. I think it's beautiful when a person blurs the gender boundaries such that they're neither really male nor female.
Not sure, Saint-Frank. I was talking a couple of weeks back to a biologist who's studying the effects of xenoestrogens on fish population in a river in France. What he told me went quite well along the line I was drawing on my last post. All of this is highly subjective of course, but try to google the picture history of female impersonators; impersonators from the past are not even remotely on the same level as some of the guys modeling as female today... And there is this unavoidable fact, more and more studied by biologist, of the real decrease in sperm count all around the world. Of course, there is still some debates about that too -isn't there about anything? But the data add up. Just read my stuff and add things up for yourself...
And of course, I know there's always been biological variation. It's the very principle of evolution. But this all goes beyond that...
I know what you're talking about. I just don't know. I just look at history and androgynes are found all over the place. They were once highly respected as priests/priestesses in ancient cultures. So I really can't say that there's an increase in it. It might just seem so odd to our culture since it was driven underground for so long since the binary gender system was socially enforced for centuries, which included a harsh dichotomy between males and females, which was most popular in the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems that our cultural beliefs about masculinity are both old and new.Quote:
Originally Posted by danthepoetman
For example, if you look at the Greco-Roman world, there was a pretty big subset of gender variant males with their own socially permitted roles in society. But then gender variance was still made the butt of jokes and guys were encouraged to be "real" masculine men. Male femininity was allowed to an extent, but still looked down on. This extended to their social mores about sexuality. To the Greeks and Romans, it was fine for a male citizen to fuck another man in the ass or get a blowjob from him as long as the guy on the receiving end was not a member of his social class. To be penetrated was to be viewed as giving up your manhood and it was ridiculed. This same mentality still underlies modern Western and Middle Eastern views of male sexuality.
Even during the Christian era, views of gender were more complex then we would think. There are many canonized Saints, for example, who were cross dressers or otherwise gender benders and got along quite fine in the Christian community, with even females becoming monks. (Yes, it seems that the Vatican has forgotten its own very queer accepting history and has gone along with ignorant modern cultural revisionism.) So it seems that this harsh binary view of males and females really is more of a recent cultural thing that really came into the fore in the '50s.
I'll try to write a whole thing about this. I profoundly, strongly think that transexuality is biological. I'll try to give more stuff later...
Yeah. The science is weak because 1) there's very little interest or funding for research in this area, 2) when people do stick their heads above the parapet, they get them shot off. The whole Blanchard/Bailey row has really discouraged any further investigation for a decade now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint_Frankenstein
Furthermore, because the apparent incidence of the expression of a particular syndrome may be increasing, that DOES NOT mean that the total number is increasing, because there will always be a population which suppresses their urges, and one which expresses them. We absolutely do know that many TG/TS people suppress their natures, some for their whole lives, but we have no way of accounting for this.
The total underlying rate, therefore, is the sum of both those who suppress and those who express, and it would be this rate that would be affected by any innate biological cause; however we have no idea whatsoever of what that rate is.
To make matters more confused, the ratio between suppression/expression appears to be governed by the culture the phenomenon is appearing in, and there is strong supporting evidence for this.
For instance, there is a clear relationship between a reduction of the social prejudice (and violence) against transgender and an increase in the apparent incidence (ie, people who are openly TG/TS).What this means is that even if there were a biological cause, socio-cultural influences are strong enough to mask its expression; nature is modified by nurture, if you like.
Furthermore, there is NO statistical base to work from, other than that done by Lynn Conway, which does not give any kind of historical timeline, just a reasonable estimate of incidence in ONE country, the US, at the time she did her research, and furthermore, while her method is convincing, her results have been widely challenged. (A similar exercise in the UK did produce similar results; however, the lack of control data means this could simply be a function of the method.)
Anyone suggesting that the underlying rates of TS/TG (that is the total of both those who suppress and those who express) are increasing, is going to have to come up with solid, hard statistical data to demonstrate that they actually are and also zero-out the cultural influences. There is just no work, anywhere, that would be of any help here and without that, anyone arguing the toss is just shooting the breeze.
You cannot say TS/TG is on the increase, when you do not know either what the actual statistical incidence is now or what it was in the past, in other words. It's all pure conjecture.
How many of the 'Pretend TV/CDs' are Tops, or Vers?
Many of the TG ladies on this forum say they don't enjoy topping. They only do it to pay the bills. They feel like women where it counts, on the inside.
However these TVs are only 'Pretend' TVs. They don't identify as women, in any way, and don't dress for the reason actual TVs dress.
Since a lot of guys at this forum are interested in being topped, finding a passable 'pretend' TV, who enjoys using her penis, might be the solution to the problem.
What if NYC had a Top/Verse only party every once in a while? Would there be enough ladies, and not 'pretend' tops to make the night worthwhile?