Transsexuality and feminisim

WARNING, LADIES: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE

I fell on articles of, or about, radical feminists whom expressed opinions so outrageous and extreme I couldn’t believe what I was reading at first. Then, what slowly emerged from those opinions was the simple logic of widespread feminist thesis pushed to the last extremity of their logic, which I find a somewhat defendable reflection –if you think something, you go to the end of your own logic, you address the following consequences. This being said, I completely disagree with these statements, of course. They contradict precisely what I personally strongly believe on these questions. In fact, they’re so absurd in my eyes that they touch possible insanity.
I will summarize the ideas defended in one of these articles, by Julie Bindel, then ask the questions they seem to pose, and finally post large extracts of it with the links. Here it goes; the summary first:
Transsexualism revolves around the idea that genders are determined, that there is something in nature (humans) such as typical male and female. It is the very antithesis of feminism. In reality, genders are pure social constructions, psychological structures of stereotypes. The concept of gender dysphoria was invented by a reactionary male psychiatrist as a defence against the progress of feminism. There is no robust scientific evidence to show a biological basis to gender dysphoria, nor to suggest that sex reassignment is any efficient. Indeed, in a world of equality between men and women, transsexualism wouldn’t exist at all. The concept of transsexualism is based on purely superficial criteria, touching essentially this aforementioned socially constructed image of one’s gender. Following the extreme example of Iran, srs is simply an expression of aversion for gays and lesbians. It has nothing to do with the health of the subjects.
Moreover, sex reassignment treatment is brutal and imperfect: it results in an alteration of male body parts and cannot turn a male into a female. It is mutilation. At worst, transsexualism is comparable to Body Dismorphic Disorder, a psychiatric condition in which the patient feels the desire to be amputated of a limb.

The main idea expressed here is that genders are constructed (and therefore if you will, that sexes are irrelevant). So the essential question it raises, to me, the only question which really address all of these unbelievably outrageous statements, is this: is the idea that genders are socially constructed still a valid idea? In my opinion, if we find merit in the idea, we give strength to such opinions against transsexuality, but reinforce the efforts of feminisim. If we don’t, and validate the idea of a natural reality of the sexes in human beings, we justify the very basis by which transsexuality is possible, but do somewhat undermine efforts of creating gender equality by affirming biological propensities –or at the very least, some efforts made by feminists in decades.
Am I right that the whole topic revolves around such questions? What is your opinion on this precise question if I’m right? In what way am I wrong if I am?
What do you think of the relation between feminism and transsexuality? Can the association of transgenders with homosexuals (male and female) in the LBTG body go beyond purely strategic purposes? Are feminists right to accuse transsexuals of perpetuating stereotypes? Is the desire for femininity (or virility) as we understand it, a kind of fetichism, sociologically constructed and unnecessary, or does it answer a deeper propensity?

(OK, I’m nuts. We’re Saturday, why am I obsessed with this, and why do I bother to ratiocinate about such an intricate subject? I don’t know! I guess I was somewhat shocked by what I read. If I’m annoying you, please just ignore me…)
____________________________________

Extracts of Julie Bindel's article:

JULIE BINDEL
The Operation That Can Ruin Your Life
November 2009
Standpointmag
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/the-o...C0%2C0%2C0%2C0
Despite campaigning against gender discrimination, rape, child abuse and domestic violence for 30 years, I have been labelled a bigot because of a column I wrote in 2004 that questioned whether a sex change would make someone a woman or simply a man without a penis. As a leading feminist writer, I now find that a number of organisations are too frightened to ask me to speak at public events for fear of protests by transsexual lobbyists.

Transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is "natural" for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls. The idea that gender roles are biologically determined rather than socially constructed is the antithesis of feminism. Those who ‘transition' seem to become stereotypical in their appearance — f**k-me shoes and birds' nest hair for the boys; beards, muscles and tattoos for the girls. Think about a world inhabited just by transsexuals. It would look like the set of Grease.
Gender dysphoria (GD) was invented in the 1950s by reactionary male psychiatrists in an era when men were men and women were doormats. It is a term used to describe someone who feels strongly that they should belong to the opposite sex and that they were born in the wrong body. GD has no proven genetic or physiological basis.
A review for the Guardian in 2005 of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery was clinically effective. It warned that the results of many gender reassignment studies were unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants.
Apart from Thailand, the country with the highest number of sex-change operations is Iran where, homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death. When sex-change surgery is performed on gay men, they become, in the eyes of the gender defenders, heterosexual women. Transsexual surgery becomes modern-day aversion therapy for gays and lesbians.
In the West, however, supporting the diagnosis and availability of surgical intervention is seen as a view right-thinking liberals should adopt. But no oppressed group ever insisted its emotional distress was the sole basis for the establishment of a right. Indeed, transsexuals, along with those seeking IVF and cosmetic surgery, are using the NHS for the pursuit of happiness not health.
Treatment is brutal and the results far from perfect. Male-to-female surgery involves removal of the penis and scrotum and the construction of a "vagina" using the skin from the phallus, breast implants inserted and the trachea shaved. Painful laser treatment to remove hair in the beard area and elsewhere and cosmetic surgery to "feminise" the face is increasingly common.
Recent legislation (the Gender Recognition Act, which allows people to change sex and be issued with a new birth certificate) will have a profoundly negative effect on the human rights of women and children. Since 2004, it has been possible for those diagnosed with GD to be assigned the sex of their choice, providing that the person has lived as the opposite sex for two years, has no plans to change back again and can provide evidence of the above.
It is not necessary to have undergone hormone treatment or surgery. In other words, a pre-operative man could apply for a job in a women — only rape counselling service and, if refused on grounds of his sex, could take the employer to court on the grounds that "he" is legally a "she".
A definition of transsexualism used by a number of transsexual rights organisations reads:
Students who are gender non-conforming are those whose gender expression (or outward appearance) does not follow traditional gender roles: "feminine boys," "masculine girls" and students who are androgynous, for example. It can also include students who look the way boys and girls are expected to look but participate in activities that are gender nonconforming, like a boy who does ballet. The term "transgender youth" can be used as an umbrella term for all students whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth and/or whose gender expression is non-stereotypical. According to this definition, a girl who plays football is trans-sexual.
A number of transsexuals are beginning to admit that opting for surgery ruined their lives. "I was a messed-up young gay man," says Claudia McClean, a male-to-female transsexual who opted for surgery 20 years ago. "If I had been offered an alternative to a sex change, I would have jumped at the chance, but as soon as I told the psychiatrist I felt trapped in the wrong body, or some such cliché, he was writing out a referral to the surgeon."
Transsexualism is becoming so normalised that increasing numbers of children are being referred to clinics by their parents. Recently, an 18-month-old baby in Denmark was diagnosed as suffering from GD. Last summer, a primary school headteacher held an assembly to explain that a nine-year-old boy would return as a girl.
Ten years ago, there were an average of six child and adolescent referrals per year in Britain, but in 2008 numbers had increased six-fold. Although the minimum age for sex-change surgery is 18, puberty-blocking hormones can be prescribed to those as young as 16, and transsexual rights lobbyists want that age to be reduced to 13.
Medical science cannot turn a biological male into a biological female — it can only alter the appearance of body parts. A trans-sexual "woman" will always be a biological male. A male-to-female transsexual serving a prison sentence for manslaughter and rape won the right to be relocated to a women's jail. Her lawyers argued that her rights were being violated by being unable to live in her role as a woman in a men's jail. Large numbers of female prisoners have experienced childhood abuse and rape and will fail to appreciate the reasons behind a biological man living among them, particularly one who still has the penis with which he raped a woman. (Some transsexuals choose to retain their genitals.)
Dr Caillean McMahon, a US-based forensic psychiatrist, defines herself not as a transsexual but as a "woman of operative history. The trans community has an unforgiving global sort of condemnation towards critical outsiders. I have to be suspicious that the insistence of many of those demanding to enter it is not for the purpose of celebrating the spirit and nature of women, but to seek an enforced validation, extracted by force in a legal or political manner." With the normalisation of transsexual surgery comes an acceptance of other forms of surgery to correct a mental disorder. In 2000, Russell Reid, a psychiatrist who has diagnosed hundreds of people with GD, was involved in controversy over the condition known as Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), where sufferers can experience a desperate urge to rid themselves of a limb. Reid referred two BDD patients to a surgeon for leg amputations. "When I first heard of people wanting amputations, it seemed bizarre in the extreme," he said in a TV documentary. "But then I thought, ‘I see transsexuals and they want healthy parts of their body removed in order to adjust to their idealised body image,' and so I think that was the connection for me. I saw that people wanted to have their limbs off with equally as much degree of obsession and need."
In a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist. The diagnosis of GD needs to be questioned and challenged. We live in a society that, on the whole, respects the human rights of others. Accepting a situation where the surgeon's knife and lifelong hormonal treatment are replacing the acceptance of difference is a scandal. Sex-change surgery is unnecessary mutilation. Using human rights laws to normalise trans-sexualism has resulted in a backward step in the feminist campaign for gender equality. Perhaps we should give up and become men. »
________________________________
An article about extremism in feminism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ans-radfem2012
And the answer given by a feminist figure:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...sm-hate-speech

julie bindel has much trans women blood on her hands.

If there was a bitch tournament, she would win hands down, no doubt. I couldn't even believe what I was reading at first. I didn't know her.

If you are into this then you need to get into the dark side known as hungdevils.

Efe, a hot, horny trans has already been posted.

It is still to come, but the thread will end with Efe trans v fiery neo-feminista.

The thread is Italy Then And Now. Would you llke to try?

I don't even think this is really about transsexualism per se. It sounds more like a tirade against 'feminine values' being possessed by anybody at all. Her arguments only go to serve an argument of total gender deconstruction, but really, while gender is fluid, it is a trait by which most people identify themselves, and all of the arguments from her and those like her aren't going to change that. That said, she needs a scapegoat, and what better than those who not only possess the aforementioned 'feminine values,' but purposely strive to achieve and express them, making them her natural enemy. Moreover, likening transsexualism to Body Dismorphic Disorder is not entirely off the mark in regards to some transpeople, i.e. people who go through no feminization before they go through SRS, and believe me, there are PLENTY of these people out there, and they do call themselves trans. Maybe the author needs to meet some REAL transpeople to start making more distinctions between subgroups within our overall community.

I've heard these arguments before and the only people they serve are those with self-hatred of their gender who don't feel that corrective measures will make them whole. Honestly, and this will sound harsh, if they're so militant against their gender roles in society and don't feel that they can be changed either within or without, then they should just withdraw from life and becoming reclusive. They have no right to take their dissatisfaction out on anybody else. Furthermore, bringing down transsexuals wouldn't even achieve their goals even if they were successful. Plenty of GG's are also happy with some variation or another of the 'traditional' female gender role.

So let her keep raging against the machine. The machine ain't listening anyway. :geek:

~BB~

Quote:

---

The trans community has an unforgiving global sort of condemnation towards critical outsiders. I have to be suspicious that the insistence of many of those demanding to enter it is not for the purpose of celebrating the spirit and nature of women, but to seek an enforced validation, extracted by force in a legal or political manner."

---

This is not entirely wrong. I've been arguing about this in regards to those mentioned earlier who take no steps to change their appearance or presentation but insist by legal force that they are women. It's not fair to the rest of us who have done the work, and frankly, most of these people are just confused transvestites and crossdressers, although there are a few self-proclaimed transsexuals who exhibit similar behavior.

Quote:

---

In a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist. The diagnosis of GD needs to be questioned and challenged. We live in a society that, on the whole, respects the human rights of others. Accepting a situation where the surgeon's knife and lifelong hormonal treatment are replacing the acceptance of difference is a scandal.

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Obviously somebody who has never transitioned cannot understand, or sometimes even perceive, the huge chasm between men and women in terms of equality. The author's theories are admittedly based on the failure to see this. The bottom line is that women ARE treated like second-class citizens and yet many of us choose to be who we truly are despite this obstacle and many others. That said, equality does not preclude transsexualism, and it does not usually factor into a person's decision to permanently change their body accordingly. Sometimes the reasons for SRS are legal, but the number one reason is still simply dissatisfaction with their birth genitals as they create sexual complications that require correction for most transwomen to feel whole and satisfied in their sex lives.

~BB~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rydermorrison

julie bindel has much trans women blood on her hands.

---

:iagree:

If I can remember where I saw it, I will post the link to an article which claims 'most' M2F transexuals are victims of child abuse. I think another cause of the hostility is that the image of a beautiful woman that many (?) transexuals aspire to is to many (?) feminists not much different from the Stepford Wives or a Bunny Girl or any kind of woman whose persona is fixated on physical beauty at the expense of their intelligence-even though most of the ts I have known have also been brainy so its really the old issue of prejudice in the sense that some feminists judge the transexual by their appearance. But it has not been a happy relationship, that's sure. Camille Paglia I think was not so hostile, but not sure if anyone takes her seriously.

Julie Bindel has been hugely influential in the feminist movement since the 70's. She actually wrote a paper to the U.N. in the early 70's that in a nutshell was the reason that health insurance companies were able to start denying coverage for trans related care and/or denying coverage to trans ppl in general based on a perceived "pre existing condition". She is the epitome of the white devil foreals ( the feminist movement was and still is very racist)... Gloria Steinem and the rest of the 2nd wave feminazis are pretty much the same deal...3rd wave feminism haw changed the movement alot but their is still alot of transphobia and racism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

I don't even think this is really about transsexualism per se. It sounds more like a tirade against 'feminine values' being possessed by anybody at all. Her arguments only go to serve an argument of total gender deconstruction, but really, while gender is fluid, it is a trait by which most people identify themselves, and all of the arguments from her and those like her aren't going to change that. That said, she needs a scapegoat, and what better than those who not only possess the aforementioned 'feminine values,' but purposely strive to achieve and express them, making them her natural enemy. Moreover, likening transsexualism to Body Dismorphic Disorder is not entirely off the mark in regards to some transpeople, i.e. people who go through no feminization before they go through SRS, and believe me, there are PLENTY of these people out there, and they do call themselves trans. Maybe the author needs to meet some REAL transpeople to start making more distinctions between subgroups within our overall community.

---

In other words, Bella, not only do you feel that “common” feminine values are the expression of something “real”, gender, something more than a “fetichism”, but you also feel that the people seeking reassignment without embodying those values are in a way not authentically transsexuals? I didn’t know there were such people. I agree with you. Very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BellaBellucci

I've heard these arguments before and the only people they serve are those with self-hatred of their gender who don't feel that corrective measures will make them whole. Honestly, and this will sound harsh, if they're so militant against their gender roles in society and don't feel that they can be changed either within or without, then they should just withdraw from life and becoming reclusive. They have no right to take their dissatisfaction out on anybody else. Furthermore, bringing down transsexuals wouldn't even achieve their goals even if they were successful. Plenty of GG's are also happy with some variation or another of the 'traditional' female gender role.

So let her keep raging against the machine. The machine ain't listening anyway. :geek:

~BB~

---

Agreed. It’s almost a will to be outside humanity, since gender is a fundamental, most basic trait of what it is to be human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iagodelgado

If you are into this then you need to get into the dark side known as hungdevils.
Efe, a hot, horny trans has already been posted.
It is still to come, but the thread will end with Efe trans v fiery neo-feminista.
The thread is Italy Then And Now. Would you llke to try?

---

Iago, I wish I understood what you're referring to, buy I admit I really don't. Efe has expressed herself against such rhetoric?

now that i think of it i'm not sure if the letter was penned by cathy Brennen or Julie Bindel..if ne one knows where i can fact check this let me know...

"Quote:
The trans community has an unforgiving global sort of condemnation towards critical outsiders. I have to be suspicious that the insistence of many of those demanding to enter it is not for the purpose of celebrating the spirit and nature of women, but to seek an enforced validation, extracted by force in a legal or political manner."

Bella: This is not entirely wrong. I've been arguing about this in regards to those mentioned earlier who take no steps to change their appearance or presentation but insist by legal force that they are women. It's not fair to the rest of us who have done the work, and frankly, most of these people are just confused transvestites and crossdressers, although there are a few self-proclaimed transsexuals who exhibit similar behavior." Bella

Here, I find that you reinforce the arguments of your previous post, Bella. Once again, you mean to say that there is such a thing as authentic feminine values, and that gender is much deeper than any kind of “fetichism”. On the contrary, it is precisely the element that distinguishes a crossdresser from a transsexual. I once again totally agree.



"Quote:
In a world where equality between men and women was reality, transsexualism would not exist. The diagnosis of GD needs to be questioned and challenged. We live in a society that, on the whole, respects the human rights of others. Accepting a situation where the surgeon's knife and lifelong hormonal treatment are replacing the acceptance of difference is a scandal.

Bella: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Obviously somebody who has never transitioned cannot understand, or sometimes even perceive, the huge chasm between men and women in terms of equality. The author's theories are admittedly based on the failure to see this. The bottom line is that women ARE treated like second-class citizens and yet many of us choose to be who we truly are despite this obstacle and many others. That said, equality does not preclude transsexualism, and it does not usually factor into a person's decision to permanently change their body accordingly. Sometimes the reasons for SRS are legal, but the number one reason is still simply dissatisfaction with their birth genitals as they create sexual complications that require correction for most transwomen to feel whole and satisfied in their sex lives.

It’s difficult for me to relate to that reality, which by being a man I suppose is normal. But I agree that it’s one more testimony to the depth at which transsexuality is being felt and experienced, that someone who would understand gender relations as unequal would still want to go on with a transition to the socially disfavoured gender.
It’s probably because I am a man, once again, but to me, we too often confuse the ideal of gender equality before social institutions with that of identity between genders, which implicitly denies the deep reality of gender distinction. I think that is precisely what is in question here, to a large extent. To what extent does transsexualism contradict the hard core feminist values. I see that Ryder is alluding to a second and third waves of feminism; I admit my total ignorance of these variations. To me, feminism is usually based on the notion that gender is a pure social construction, and therefore has no root in a deeper reality, is somewhat “superficial”, can be denied and erased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If I can remember where I saw it, I will post the link to an article which claims 'most' M2F transexuals are victims of child abuse. I think another cause of the hostility is that the image of a beautiful woman that many (?) transexuals aspire to is to many (?) feminists not much different from the Stepford Wives or a Bunny Girl or any kind of woman whose persona is fixated on physical beauty at the expense of their intelligence-even though most of the ts I have known have also been brainy so its really the old issue of prejudice in the sense that some feminists judge the transexual by their appearance. But it has not been a happy relationship, that's sure. Camille Paglia I think was not so hostile, but not sure if anyone takes her seriously.

---

To me, once again, you pin it right on the spot, Stavros. This particular feminine aesthetic, for instance, is it just “fetichism” or is it the expression of a deeper reality. I keep coming back to that as in my opinion it is the very core of the question and especially, of the feminist point of view on both the social unequality and transsexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rydermorrison

Julie Bindel has been hugely influential in the feminist movement since the 70's. She actually wrote a paper to the U.N. in the early 70's that in a nutshell was the reason that health insurance companies were able to start denying coverage for trans related care and/or denying coverage to trans ppl in general based on a perceived "pre existing condition". She is the epitome of the white devil foreals ( the feminist movement was and still is very racist)... Gloria Steinem and the rest of the 2nd wave feminazis are pretty much the same deal...3rd wave feminism haw changed the movement alot but their is still alot of transphobia and racism...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rydermorrison

now that i think of it i'm not sure if the letter was penned by cathy Brennen or Julie Bindel..if ne one knows where i can fact check this let me know...

---

Very interesting, Ryder. I will check this out, as I’m totally ignorant of what it is about. The names you’re giving here should allow me to get to know a bit more. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoddessAthena85

:iagree:

---

So you also knew this woman, Athena? Something all new and very shocking to me –and I’m not easily shocked…

To the person who’s giving thumbs down to Ryder and Athena, obviously because of an admiration for Julie Bindel, it would be nice if you would express yourself on the matter! I would like to know your opinion, and I’m sure I’m not the only one…

Janice Raymond is the woman ive been thinking of. its been on the tip of my tongue for the last hour lol..

Thanks again, Ryder.
By the way, this new avatar is mmmm! lovely!!!!!!

thank u Dan :)

In a few discussions with ladies on here, it has been suggested that gender is not biological but mental. Is that not quite similar to what this feminist woman is saying about gender roles?

(hardcore feminists are really annoying... lol)

That’s precisely the question it raises, in my opinion. Now to me, genders have a biological origin, whatever culture adds to it. And there lays the idea that transsexuality, as a deep inadequacy between the feeling of gender identity and the genetic sex, is innate and biological, and therefore in the strongest sense of the word, absolutely “real”. And indeed, this view at least partly contradicts the feminist credo that genders are pure social constructions. That’s what struck me when I read these articles.
Yet, you have little “boys” who from a very early age, from the age at which it is said that the sense of gender forms, already claiming to be girls! It’s a thorn in the feminists foot (not to say ass), and you can understand the reasons of their frustration. But going as far as this lady, Julie Bindel, is going in her article, is showing utter blindness, imo; she can only remain impervious to any contradictory argument, in such a frame of mind.

totally.. Gender is inherent and biological but gender roles are a social construct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rydermorrison

totally.. Gender is inherent and biological but gender roles are a social construct.

---

Not sure I entirely agree because there are biological factors involved in some of those gender roles...

For example, traditionally it would be more down to women to look after babies because of the stronger bond that is initially formed during pregnancy and breast feeding (etc). Also, on average women are not as physically strong as men... (among with many other differences)

In other words, some of those gender roles are rooted in biology as much as societal pressures.

I think the gender lines are more blurred now. Mostly women doing the so called "guy" things now. Im all about that I like women doing "guy" things.

i guess its kinda hard to explain why we trans woman feel like woman.for me its was just knowing that the male body i was born in felt odd and wrong.i didnt want to be a girl because of a desire to do things that were feminine like play with dolls and etc because as a young boy i was allowed to do those things.
now as a trans woman im strive for femininity in appearance alone.the ability to look like and pass as an every day woman.i think some trans woman aspire to be this hyper feminine and sexy image of a woman that is very stereotypical.i can kinda understand why some feminist might see it as a bit weird when a ts girl thinks that in order to be a woman one must have exaggerated secondary sex characteristics and buy into all the stereotypes of what a woman is.
i know a few trans girls who do identify as woman but live lives free of gender roles and restrictions.

i agree. some gender roles are def indirectly born from biology.

Yes to all of your interventions, Ryder, Loveboof and Amber. I do feel that there is no way to think, today, that biology doesn’t have a role in gender determinations too. Culture does, on top of it, of course, it’s obvious. But we’ve come a long way since the theories of the recent past that held as a sacred truth that we are tabula rasa, that everything we are comes from culture. With the progress of neurology and endocrinology for instance, we understand how biology always has a role in everything we are. For the bond between children and infants, Loveboof, we know that progesterone and oxytocin have a major role. As to the desire for a very particular aesthetic for women, Amber, we have to suspect strongly that the seduction behaviour in human, most probably largely determined by biology, has a lot to do with it. And the fact that this behaviour has been pursued by women since the dawn of time is (and was) one more indication of that. (In most species, it’s the male that has the “burden” of aesthetic, it’s the male that adopt some colours and some features that will make the female choose him; in humans, it seems to be the females, for reasons not yet known).
It’s now a matter of knowing where to draw the line. Both nature and culture are involved in our behaviour, if such a distinction still has any meaning; many biologists today point to the fact that even what is learned through cultural processes has a foundation in biology that needs to be considered: we can only learn what our biology allow us to learn, what our particular biology already has in store for us at birth, and therefore our behaviour remains in a relatively restricted realm. And more and more, we can discover and understand what those determinations are.
Allow me to insist on something I touched before: I think in (what little I know of) feminist thinking, there is an important confusion between “equality” (social equality, equality in face of the institutions, in justice, politics, democracy, work, workplaces, work laws, etc., etc.), and “identity”. It’s not because we want and seek equality between women and men that we also want them to be identical! It’s total nonsense! Sexual differentiation is the most beautiful thing life has produced. It seems that we often apply ourselves with all our energy to destroy this difference. And I find that terrible! Women and men are different, and it’s the only thing that seems to make any sense in that crazy world! Why would we want to destroy that?
Amber, you shouldn’t be embarrassed of your desire to be beautiful (and by God, you are lovely!). To me, it’s perfectly normal and natural! Not only is there nothing wrong with it, not only is it on the contrary something beautiful for every one around you, there’s no doubt in my mind that it does have everything to do with what you are deep down, a woman! it has everything to do with some biological factor in your very identity.

i dont recall every stating i want to be beautiful.i want to be feminine in appearance and pass as a woman.i dont necessarily buy into societies standard of feminine beauty.i shaved my head (think g.i. jane lol) last year and later donned a mohawk.i got alot of slack for it from the porn world.it was apparently not feminine enough from the male porn consumer perspective.however in the normal world i never had a problem passing with the very short do and never felt more womanly.in fact for me it affirmed my femininity.i didnt need all the superficial crap to be a woman like weave,make up etc.
i dont want to be some hyper feminine sex doll,i merely desire to have my outside match my inside.

It's what I'm talking about, Amber. I never said either that I found you to be superficial. I really don't, on the contrary. I just found that it's something that comes with the territory: it just comes with femininity. That's my point.
But on the other hand, I do feel that we tend to put such impulses or desires as feminine coquetry in the superficial department; in my opinion, it's totally wrong! Not to the point of being a doll, I agree with you. But to a certain extent, I think it's simply part of what femininity is. And strangely, it's you, women, among yourselves, that tend to put some kind of guilt on one another for that... To me, human aesthetic, which females hold the key to, and always historically has been, is part of the seduction behaviour, and I'm personally persuaded that it is largely (not uniquely) of biological origin. No?