The term transsexual...why doesn't it apply to me?

I think the real idea between E´s topic is his try to awake a consciousness that we are a community. We are a category of our own and I mean only only those who are into GG´s and TS´s or only TS´s if there´s someone like that. Those who like TS´s and men surely don´t have this issue and define themselves as bisexual. Or maybe not? Labels might be wrong but a term is necessery to avoid any confusion. No one wants to be put into a category where he doesn´t belong. Labels are a result of prejudices but scientific terms as well. It´s a fact that men who are attracted to the same sex are gay and no one can´t ignore this. We´re attracted to TS´s who are not men so what I´m I going to say if someone asks me what this is supposed to mean? What does it mean to be attracted to girls with dicks but not men?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

. i'm saying that my sexuality and attraction is bio/physiological, as well. this is me.

---

For me what attracts me to a person is their personality,
intelligence, integrity, sense of humor, etc.

What is between their legs is irrelevant to me. Thus this
is why I would be open to dating any person that filled
the criteria above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggygee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

. i'm saying that my sexuality and attraction is bio/physiological, as well. this is me.

---

For me what attracts me to a person is their personality,
intelligence, integrity, sense of humor, etc.

What is between their legs is irrelevant to me. Thus this
is why I would be open to dating any person that filled
the criteria above.

---

that's great. i'm attracted to those things, too. but although i've had sex with men and women in a quest to find myself, it was never internally fulfilling no matter how much i enjoyed their humor, personality, intelligence, integrity, sense of humor, etc. it never felt right for me, personally.

i don't know how to explain it any better than that. it just feels right for me.

can i ask..is this suspect to you because of the fetishizing of transsexuals that goes on by the majority of men?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coroner

I think the real idea between E´s topic is his try to awake a consciousness that we are a community. We are a category of our own and I mean only only those who are into GG´s and TS´s or only TS´s if there´s someone like that. Those who like TS´s and men surely don´t have this issue and define themselves as bisexual. Or maybe not? Labels might be wrong but a term is necessery to avoid any confusion. No one wants to be put into a category where he doesn´t belong. Labels are a result of prejudices but scientific terms as well. It´s a fact that men who are attracted to the same sex are gay and no one can´t ignore this. We´re attracted to TS´s who are not men so what I´m I going to say if someone asks me what this is supposed to mean?

---

Dunno. :)

That's the big question.

I also understand Seanchai when he tries to describe it as a fetish. He shows respect for T-girls by not making differences between GG´s and TS´s. But it´s not a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coroner

I also understand Seanchai when he tries to describe it as a fetish. He shows respect for T-girls by not making differences between GG´s and TS´s. But it´s not a solution.

---

it's all very varied. i have plenty of friends who identify as transsexuals, period. not as women.

but like you said, it's not a solution.

maybe we should just coin a phrase ourselves and pummel it into the social consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

If I was gay I could be a homosexual. If I was straight, i could be a heterosexual. Bisexual, same thing. And so on. But I can't be a transsexual.

---

Very interesting thread to come home to from a concert tonight, one which appeals to both my intellect and my sexuality. First of all, let me say (though I suspect that you know this Eric), I am primarily sexually attracted to transwomen, and like yourself long wondered why there is no proper term for this attraction, the alternatives being highly negatively charged (tranny chaser, gay, homosexual, the gamut, some more insulting than others to both the [what's the word] and to the transwomen to whom they are attracted.

I'm not quite in the same camp you are, e, since I am not exclusively attracted to transwomen, and I have had fairly extensive experience with men, women, and transwomen. However, from a purely physical point of view (and yes, there is SO much more involved, but just to consider the physical for the moment), nothing gets my juices flowing like a beautiful pre- or non-op transwoman. That is, as you indicate, the way I'm hardwired. Now I am attracted to female beauty, which is a large factor (again, from that purely physical point of view), and a beautiful woman will always turn my head, but the effect is always much less than with a transwoman. And men do nothing for me, nada.

As to the terms: it's the prefix that determines form. Thus, hetero = other, homo = same, bi = both, and trans = across, over, changing (all of these senses apply). Thus, heterosexual means attracted to the other sex, homosexual means attracted to the same sex, bisexual means attracted to both sexes, but transsexual means crossing over to the other sex or changing to the other sex. Thus we need a different term. Pansexual (pan = all) doesn't fit any better than bisexual unless one is attracted to all variants. Likewise omnisexual. I have yet to find a term that does fit.

But then you give a strong clue when you post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

I define transwomen as they want to be defined - transwomen, transsexuals, women. Those are deep personal choices that each transwomen needs to make for herself.

---

This being the case, then you are [fillintheblank]sexual only in relation to any given transwoman. If she sees herself as a woman, you are heterosexual. If she sees herself as a man, you're homosexual. If she sees herself as the third sex, you're, umm, kathoeysexual or phettheesamsexual (assuming we can combine form with Thai and English as with Latin and English). In any case, your sexuality in terms of who you're attracted to is definable only in relation to another person.

Of course, this doesn't resolve the negative connotations of said attraction common to our society:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

currently the only terms used for guys like me are negative.

there no positive or medical term for people like me

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggygee

Eric, Ecstatic, and now Jericho have really driven home to me the lack of a positive term to describe men who like transwomen. There are no support groups per se, and basically they meet on forums like this and ask each other why do they feel the way they do.

---

Well put, Peggy. Not only is there the lack of a positive term, there is a lack of support groups other than forums which typically have other overriding interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggygee

Natal females who are in relationships with transwomen are
deemed lesbians, and there's not a great deall of stigma attached to them.
For a genetic male in a realtionship with a transwoman, thetre may be a
stigma, and as stated there is no term to describe them.

---

So very true. And despite my point above about one's sexuality only being definable in relation to another, at least at a certain level, the stigma commonly associated with the attraction indicates that there is, indeed, the need for a more embracing term at least for general discussion. But it also begs the question: are we to see all transwomen as transwomen? Or as what they choose to be seen as (be that women, men, or a third sex)? OK, this is getting circular.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggygee

But post operatively I have met a fair number of men that will only date
transwomen, be they pre or post operative. For me this strikes me as very
odd, and harkens back to what Seanchai said upthread about men who
only date women who have a penis or once had a penis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

I disagree with you. I think it's more demeaning to most transsexuals to know that your purely into transsexuals because let's face it, the only real discernable differences are:
a) either she has a penis or used to have one.
b) when she was born, current norms classed her as male.

In all other aspects other than above, she's a female. So somebody like yourself is purely into her for one of those reasons - and that is demeaning within itself.

---

I must admit that men who only are interested in women who have a
penis history give me pause for cause.

---

Indeed. Again, the complexity. This demands an individual answer, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggygee

I must admit that I question
whether their affinity is to the woman or to her previous or current
genitilia, ie. the penis.

For me what attracts me to a person is their personality,
intelligence, integrity, sense of humor, etc.

What is between their legs is irrelevant to me. Thus this
is why I would be open to dating any person that filled
the criteria above.

---

I most definitely concur with your first statement about your preferences: this takes us well beyond the "purely physical" dimension I was referring to above and into the far deeper and more important facets of attraction, such as personality, intelligence, integrity, humor, shared interests, etc. But I don't quite agree with your followup statement (for myself, obviously), as what is between their legs is indeed relevant. It's merely one of several relevant factors, but it's far from irrelevant. To return to Eric's comments, I am primarily (though not exclusively) attracted to transwomen. Thus I would be less likely to seek out other companionship, which is not to say I would not welcome or enjoy such companionship.

Some time ago, in a similar thread I came up with a 3 dimensional sexual classification theory. Here's how it goes...

--------------------------------------------------------

While I have no degree in psychology or any other discipline that would make me qualified to come up with theories on the subject, it occurred to me that there a 3 dimensions of a person's sexuality...

1) Their identity (whether they identify as male or female)
2) Their genital preference
and
3) The aesthetic preference (that is whether they like the face/body/style of men or women)

If you factor in all the different combinations, including those with no preference in the last two, you have 18 "types"...

Type MMM: Identifies as male, and prefers male genitalia and the male aesthetic (gay males)

Type MMF: Identifies as male, prefers male genitalia, but prefers the female aesthetic (a man who dates transsexuals, what might be referred to in slang as a "tranny chaser")

Type MMB: Identifies as male, prefers male genitalia, and has no aesthetic preference (a man who will date both men and MTF transsexuals)

Type MFM: Identifies as male, prefers female genitalia, but prefers the male aesthetic (probably somewhat rare)

Type MFF: Identifies as male, prefers female genitalia and the female aesthetic (straight males)

Type MFB: Identifies as male, prefers female genitalia, and has no aesthetic preference (probably somewhat rare)

Type MBM: Identifies as male, has no genital preference, but prefers the male aesthetic (probably somewhat rare)

Type MBF: Identifies as male, has no genital preference, but prefers the female aesthetic (a man who will date both women and MTF transsexuals)

Type MBB: Identifies as male, and has no genital or aesthetic preference (bisexual males)

Type FMM: Identifies as female, prefers male genitalia and the male aesthetic (straight females and MTF transsexuals who prefer men)

Type FMF: Identifies as female, prefers male genitalia, but prefers the female aesthetic (women and MTF transsexuals who date MTF transsexuals)

Type FMB: Identifies as female, prefers male genitalia, and has no aesthetic preference (women and MTF transsexuals who date men and MTF transsexuals)

Type FFM: Identifies as female, prefers female genitalia, but prefers the male aesthetic (probably somewhat rare)

Type FFF: Identifies as female, and prefers both female genitalia and the female aesthetic (lesbians)

Type FFB: Identifies as female, prefers female genitalia, and has no aesthetic preference (probably somewhat rare)

Type FBM: Identifies as female, has no genital preference, but prefers the male aesthetic (probably somewhat rare)

Type FBF: Identifies as female, has no genital preference, but prefers the female aesthetic (women and MTF transsexuals who date women and MTF transsexuals)

Type FBB: Identifies as female and has no genital or aesthetic preference (bisexual females)

I'm somewhere between an MMF and an MBF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

As to the terms: it's the prefix that determines form. Thus, hetero = other, homo = same, bi = both, and trans = across, over, changing (all of these senses apply). Thus, heterosexual means attracted to the other sex, homosexual means attracted to the same sex, bisexual means attracted to both sexes, but transsexual means crossing over to the other sex or changing to the other sex. Thus we need a different term. Pansexual (pan = all) doesn't fit any better than bisexual unless one is attracted to all variants. Likewise omnisexual. I have yet to find a term that does fit.

But then you give a strong clue when you post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whatsupwithat

I define transwomen as they want to be defined - transwomen, transsexuals, women. Those are deep personal choices that each transwomen needs to make for herself.

---

This being the case, then you are [fillintheblank]sexual only in relation to any given transwoman. If she sees herself as a woman, you are heterosexual. If she sees herself as a man, you're homosexual. If she sees herself as the third sex, you're, umm, kathoeysexual or phettheesamsexual (assuming we can combine form with Thai and English as with Latin and English). In any case, your sexuality in terms of who you're attracted to is definable only in relation to another person.

---

Great thoughts, E.

We could go round and round on this one, huh? *head spins*

I'm exhausted...been discussing this all day. Ugh. I waiting to hear why my sexuality is considered demeaning from peggy. I truly do not believe that for a second. I do believe, as many have stated, that most of the men are in it for the fetish. I am not. I pretty much got over the fetish aspect long ago. it feels right to me. And to some others, like yourself.

Once again, i never quite understood why i should be looked down upon for my sexuality by the very people who should be lifting it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by francisfkudrow

Type MMF: Identifies as male, prefers male genitalia, but prefers the female aesthetic (a man who dates transsexuals, what might be referred to in slang as a "tranny chaser")

.

---

You're genius. But there's one problem. Why is there a negative connotation (tranny chaser) attached to only one of those terms? All the rest are free to be themselves without judgement?