So I think you're saying that it's all very complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
Printable View
So I think you're saying that it's all very complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
not quite... i was going for the orthogonality
possibilities there.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
damn where to start...i stopped trying to explain myself years ago....if someone is genuinely interested in finding about my life that is one thing...i will be more than happy to shed some light...i live my life for myself and no one else...next time i see my chick i will ask her what it makes me when i dick her down till she cant walk right....hey but i do make up a bath for her afterwards , hahahaha
E u are my boy....don't worry about it....if anyone asks i will be like "my friend Eric he loves to hump everything, lmfao" like u say humps bring smiles !!!!
Iīd buy that book. :wink: What you said about people who donīt grasp "us" is related to anything else that appears as "unusual" in our societies. This leads to terminological creations of sub-cultures. People talk about gay cultures, gay societies which is wrong since homosexuality has always been part of humanity. Some folks create specific rules and treat anything "alien" to those rules with acts of exclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsupwithat
I second that. What you call a community in this context is a great idea but itīs just an idea. Frankly spoken, Iīm not sure how many folks here have that community consciousness. We are all just humans and this community includes people like you who care, cockchasers, douchebags, nice guys, avaricious girls. People join a community to pursue personal interests and some really try to discuss important issues. This is a great topic and I wish we have more of these conversations. A community is much more than club parties and can be classified as one based on its beneficial character.Quote:
seriously, though, i am all for living as i be. but if you go back to what truebeauty said earlier...as well as others...this goes beyond the individual and our individual choices and preferences and ideas of how we label and see ourselves. it's actually all about community and cohesion and support and moving forward as one, under one umbrella, in a positive way. 'i am what i am' and 'we are what we are' just doesn't cut it when there's nothing for those outside of our community to pin it to. we might as well be ether.
As for the "outside world", you canīt help it at all. The biologist and philosopher Humberto Maturana said that the observed depends on the observer. This means that whatever you say or write, the reader or listener will intepret it his way. You like TS but not men and you probably donīt label yourself as a gay man but there will always be people who will still call you a fag because they donīt recognize TS as women. They have no connections to this community which remains a sub-culture and it seems that "members" of this community donīt really try to change its position in its world. I do not blame anyone because I better start with myself.
This is great, E. Iīm jealous of such a great family and I hope for you that you can count on them forever. You have to prove your true competences and people will hopefully forget about such actually unimportant things like sexuality. Stay strong man.Quote:
btw, awesome about your sis. i may have painted a portrait of my sister that was a tad negative, but she really has been supportive. she just wants to understand...just like my nieces and nephews do. and they're not the only ones. i run across it all the time. it'd be great to give them clarity outside of rehashed buddhist sayings...that's all. :)
Cockmasters!Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueBeauty TS
-
You're not alone .
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsupwithat
Just wanted to say the OP was excellent, and really does address a weakness in our community.
In this case I mean community as a group that shares certain political, economic and social interests. If we don't choose some terms to be called we can't expect support from media or write law that defends us, as both need something to identify us by.
Whether we want terms specifically for each variation or not, we need them to move forward any agenda that protects us from an relatively ignorant majority. Education is a generational goal here, as that same majority has no need to try to understand us, so expect them to change only slowly, but we can achieve much more with a few legal battles, laws and media events.
On the personal side, I really wish we had a term for someone who is attracted to trans women (pre or post op) that is not at least vaguely insulting. (And lets face it... chaser and fag are both pretty negative nine times out of ten.)
I'm very open about who I like to date, have never used someone as a sex object... but the best I can expect to be called is a chaser. It adds to the rampant depression in our community if there is no good way to talk to each other, like every other form of damaged family around.
Aw... I'm just rambling... thankyou folks for the topic.
sean
E, I tried to hide my attraction for transgender ladys when I came to the point where i no longer could keep my feelings inside I had paid a price. I lost my job and was abandon buy close friends.I also think it was one reason for my alcoholism. now sober I am learning that you cant change how people see you, you just need to be yourself and let the chips fall where they may.lables are for close minded people and you my friend are far from close minded . so my point ,just be yourself and forget about what others think.
First of all: Hey Eric!! Long time no talk! I tried to reach you when I was in NYC back in April, but couldn't connect. Good to see you posting and to hear the updates on "T".Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsupwithat
On topic: I recall a very in-depth discussion of this topic here a year or two back, which even came up with some rather clinical terms which may have technically addressed the issue, but only very awkwardly, such as transphillic (love of one of the same birth sex who identifies and presents as the opposite gender, but rather sounds clinically like a fetish), gyneandrosexual (gyneandro = female man, but then that is rife with linguistic mines), or gyneandromorphosexual (sexual attraction to one who has metamorphosed from male to female, but whew, what a mouthful...err, no pun intended). I recall each of these from that previous discussion, and each has been mentioned recently here and elsewhere, but none really satisfies.
The dichotomy in the community is obvious at every pass: transwomen are not gay men in frocks, they're women who were born with mis-matched genitalia. They are transsexuals. But you're right about the morphology of the terminology: hetero-, homo-, and bisexual all refer to the sexuality of the subject in terms of the physical type s/he is attracted to, but transsexual refers to the subject in terms of their identified sex (which is further confused all too commonly with gender). Yet transgender is too wide an umbrella, hence the use of transsexual (plus the historical fact of transsexual being used earlier than transgender).
Trees: this reminds me of an argument between a friend who is a landscape architect and one who is a landscaper regarding bushes vs. shrubs. To the landscaper (and most English speaking people) "bush" refers to any relatively small woody treelike plant. But technically, as the landscape architect argued, there is no such thing as a "bush": there are trees and shrubs. I won't belabor the point, but it has parallel here, as we are all fairly clear on what constitutes a tree and what constitutes a shrub, but what of that middle ground?
Bikini String Theory: love it! And how about the follow-up, A Brief History of Trans? This Hawking fellow must be a busy guy....
Cheers.