The whole thing is ludicrous. So now we're supposed to once again consider gender identity issues as major mental disorders? What happened to how fluid gender is and how natural it is when the lines are blurred?

I'm confused.

Anyway, Imma go murder my husband so I can go to prison. I'd really like to look like Catherine Zeta Jones and I need some surgery to get there.

Oh, I don't have a husband. Shoot.

*backs away slowly from the coming flames*

Just order one! Satisfaction not guaranteed...

"The whole thing is ludicrous."
 

*Agreed.










*But: my own views ('he' is not interchangeable with 'she') are already posted in this thread over and over, so I have no need to beat that drum again.

Oh my. I couldn't pick on so I did the compatibility test. I was hooked up with Arnaud, who only smells (how you say) a little. :lol:

Genders are not interchangeable. You are what you are between your ears.

I do not go back and forth, as the situation demands. I am a female. Period. That I was born with male parts is fixable now. And when it's all said and done, I will be a woman. With female parts. Period. I don't get to say I'm a man now because the mechanic is lying to me again. Or I really want that job but they don't hire women for it. Or because it's Tuesday.

Transsexuals generally do not go in for anything other than the binary gender paradigm. (I've always wanted to use that word!) We only want to fit in to the existing norm. It's the others on the TG spectrum that want to play games with gender. Live and let live, I say.

I do not agree with discriminating against anyone on the basis of their appearance, even if it makes you uncomfortable. *I* happen to dislike bigots. But do I go around saying they should not be permitted to breed? Or should be rounded up and exiled? Or shot? No. Yet this is what transsexuals live with daily.

Back on topic, that prisoner does not suffer from a mental illness, as some suggest. It is a physical deformity that is easily visible, yet camouflaged in plain sight. But, unlike other types of deformity, such as a deviated septum or a harelip or a club foot, this deformity affects primarily the mind. That is why so many would (and do) deny appropriate treatment as defined by medical professionals. GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

The judge ruled properly, yet I still wish it had been someone other than a prisoner, because the resulting news coverage may hurt us as much as help us.

I truly hope that this decision stands, not for the benefit of prisoners, but because it can have ripple effects for us all.

More and more health plans are covering Hormone Replacement Therapy, counseling and even surgery for transsexuals. One day soon, Medicare will cover it too, I hope. That, I believe, will sway a majority of health plans.

Thanks, Pam.

Just to be clear, I didn't suggest it was a mental illness. That was the judge's justification for allowing the surgery to proceed. The problem, then, is not that the person in question is a prisoner, but that the judge negated much of the work done to create an understanding of what gender identity really is.

Of course one might say that those who question it, or don't understand it, are bigots. I do appreciate your post because it adds more perspective than just pointing out 'bigots' and it was clear and thoughtful.

A lot of things need to be fixed in health plans, the prime example being insurances not paying for birth control but paying for Viagra. It is still a 'man's' world in many respects, so every struggle for equality is an important one.

Thanks again for your post. You always provide a better understanding, without anger, without reaction. I admire that.

I take issue with this. You're suggesting my penis is a physical deformity? I think many many men would also strongly disagree with you. Yet, in the other cases you describe, a harelip, a clubfoot, I don't think anyone would believe their anatomy is normal or common. How can you support the idea that a set of physical attributes found in about half the population constitutes a "physical defomity"?

If it was really "needless", why bother bringing it up again?

Oh no, V.
Have you been drunk texting photos again?

I... I can't remember?

DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK AT WORK

Puppetry of the Penis. Video of performance on Absolute Radio.
NB - I dislike Iain Lee, and the cackling woman is dreadful, but this was the best clip I could find.

(Note - not goatse, but if you don't want to look at two men manipulating their penises, again, do not click)

"If it was really "needless", why bother bringing it up again?"
 

Take it on down the road, Big Verbose.

Me: (still) not interested.

did you just tell me to shut up?

I'm verbose, it's true, but I only use as many words as are needed, no more. I was confused by what you wrote and asked for clarification, thinking you would be the best person to explain your own words. You seemed to contradict yourself in that post, just as you do here; if you're not interested, if it is "needless", why did you bother to bring it up.

You may reply with whatever degree of verbosity you deem necessary.

Let's take, then, the case of someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome, who is XY but does not produce/react to androgens like Testosterone. They would not, then, have a penis, but would not develop secondary female sexual characteristics. Would this person's vagina be a deformity, or not, in your mind? it is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did.
Pam's point is that, in trans* people, the fact that their body did not develop the way it should have (or, if you want to reverse it, their brain/mind/identity did not develop the way the body did, or whatever) means that, while it would be normal for their bodies to have developed that way IF they were a man, they aren't (or vice-versa for trans* men), and so it's an abnormal development of the body.

Thanks for the reply Ibby. I'd like to start by saying I'm not hostile toward you, Pam, or any other trans* people. I also wish to state that I don't know many, though I have had a few casual interactions with a few, probably under a dozen. Lastly, I'm not familiar at all with androgen insensitivity syndrome beyond what you've described here.

So that's a good point to start with.
From what I can glean from your description here "secondary female sexual characteristics" would mean enlarged breasts, minimal facial hair, relatively wider hips, perhaps some other less dramatically different physical characteristics. When you say "would not develop" some or all or more of the traits above and then ask me if that person's vagina would represent a "physical deformity", my answer is no. There are many people who have a vagina that do not have enlarged breasts, or the other secondary sexual characteristics (adults, of course, not children). Of those people, I would not consider the presence of a vagina in the absence of the other secondary characteristics a physical deformity.

Your last sentence "It is a part of the body that should not normally have developed the way it did." is subjective and presumes a baseline of "normal" that appears to weigh the absence of secondary sexual characteristics more heavily than the presence of "primary" (my term) sexual characteristics, in this case a vagina. I'm not quarreling with *your* interpretation of such a situation, I'm just saying you seem to be emphasizing the secondary and minimizing the primary. That seems backwards.

This point depends entirely on what your definition of "should* is. "My body developed the way it should have." "My body did not develop the way it should have." What is the frame of reference for what "should be" is? I don't have an answer.

Your thought experiment to reverse it is interesting, and when it's reversed, to my mind, it puts the "should be" reference point in the body, and the brain/mind/identity as the aspect of the person that "did not develop as it should have". It is a small step from there to make the conclusion that the judge did in the story discussed earlier to view such a situation as a "mental illness" or "mental deformity" if you'll permit me to meld your term with the judge's.

The term "physical deformity" isn't subject to a person's brain/mind/identity. If you look at two pictures of a child's mouth and one of them shows a cleft palette it is clear which is the physical deformity. If you looked at a thousand or a million such pictures, there would be no question as to which were physically deformed and which were normal. (Yes, there might be some cases that were.... somewhere in between, oooh... is that just a really high cupid's bow or is it actually cleft. sure. But that is not the suggestion Pam, nor you are making "My penis is vanishingly small and that deformity defines my trans*-ness.) Now imagine looking at two pictures of two different penises. How can you tell which is a "physical deformity"? How can you determine from those two pictures which one belongs to the trans* person? I don't think you can, I'm sure I can't.

Such a statement is an improper use of the term "physical deformity". That's my point.

No V.. You misunderstand. I said MY penis, as well as other attributes not common to my gender, are a deformity. Somewhere in my link collection I have a chart that shows how I was supposed to have developed but for a poorly-timed shot of testosterone during my development. My (not your) penis is supposed to be my vagina, my testes are supposed to be my ovaries etc.

I was speaking only for transsexual women. YOU were born male and you got the standard-issue male brain to go with the package. I did not. That's the difference. What is a deformity to ME is perfectly normal to YOU.

Love

Pam

Do the stereotypes associated with men and women (i.e. women are from Venus, men are from Mars) hold with trans* men and trans* women; or, does the mind-body incongruity period irreparably obscure them?

The 'man is from Mars, women are from Venus' thing has pretty much been discredited for straight people, let alone transgender.

In academia, perhaps. In the real world, women may still make less money for doing the same jobs as men and encounter the glass ceiling as a result of that perception. That's in first world countries, in the second world they can be much worse off. These circumstances can affect their development differently. Do those who are transgendered, after their formative years, ever realize the same outlook?

Ah, I see. I'd misunderstood your post :P

Perhaps I could do better with an analogy. When people beyond their formative years study a foreign language, at first they translate everything (their own thoughts and what others are saying) in their heads. Eventually, they can become accustomed enough to "think" in the foreign language and not have to translate in their heads anymore. Some people have a greater; or, lesser aptitude than others to learn another language which can be measured with a battery of tests.

Can people learn to think entirely like their mental gender for their culture after being raised/indoctrinated in their physical gender; or, is that not possible unlike learning to think in another language? If they can, can their aptitude be measured?

I would think maybe that is why they want the physical change...because they already 'think' in that gender's language. Their struggle is in fighting the indocrination.

Last night I dreamt in Chinese.
Eating Yankee shredded wheat

That's true in part; however, part of them has already been indoctrinated, during their formative years, into thinking like their physical gender and that's the part I'm referring to.

Maybe I'm being a bit slow, but what sort of things are you referring to them thinking in terms of "male" or "female" mindsets? I understand what you're saying in an abstract sort of way... men and women are raised/treated differently, I'm just not really understanding how you'd know you were thinking in a completely "female" capacity after being raised as a male?

So.. basically... how would you know that your outlook/mental whatever was entirely transformed into the "female" mindset or not? (or vice versa...)

Sort of like if you saw a completely different set of colors than everyone, but you were raised in the same kindgergarten. Purple would be purple to you, even if your eyes saw orange instead. The color would be different but you wouldn't be able to tell, having never seen through someone else's eyeballs.

Others would be able to tell. To continue my analogy, some people can learn another language and its culture well enough to pass as a native while others cannot. Are transgendered peoples' ability to ever pass through society without that being noticed obscured?

Ok Thanks for the clarification on your question.

Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less. My objection is the taxpayers getting stuck with the bill.

I think the point made in that article though, is that prisoners with other medical or pyschological needs are assisted. At taxpayers expense. So why distinguish between them and this guy, unless one is making a judgement as to which condition/problem is recognisable to us and which is frivolous.

There is a broad tendency within society to see something like this as frivolous or unnecessary.

Stop snacking on spicy foods right before bed. That'll stop the weird dreams! :D

An article in the Boston Globe that I think sums up the Nay votes pretty well.

Well put and reasoned without a lot of hating. For once. Most of what I have read on this so far is a lot of hate and misinformation.

And this article, while not openly supporting the judge's decision, is more in the Yea camp.

I'm not against "needs" being addressed, but I'll bet presented with the treatment given all prisoners, I'd probably take the same position on many of them. Don't forget this is job security for the docs and shrinks that work for the prison system.
Yes, with good reason.

Pam said:OK, so take a guy that is born with one leg two inches shorter than the other. That's going to cause a serious hitch in his git-along, and sure to twist his head from childhood teasing to stares and whispers as an adult. He could get it corrected but doesn't, most likely from lack of funds. Now he murders his wife and gets sent to prison, suddenly the taxpayer is on the hook for the procedure? NO, if it's not necessary before he goes to prison, it's not necessary while he's in. It's not an emergency like an appendicitis, that makes it elective as far as I'm concerned.

See, capital punishment would have solved this problem.

Better watch it, Bruce....
 

...with this -- "Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less." -- some one is liable to call you 'cunt' or 'bully'... ;)

##

"did you just tell me to shut up?"

Pretty much, yeah.

Nobody is going to call Bruce a bully, because he isn't one.

I agree....irrelevant...kinda misses the point of my post.

*shrug*

Yep. Somewhat deliberately.

Simply using the words you point out doesn't attract the label 'bully'.

Still missing the point of my post (and: no, I won't be explaining it).

He says, missing the point of my post.

Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).

'nuff said.

@bruce: So, actually, for you it's the broader picture, rather than specifically this procedure that you object to?

That's a whole other argument I think. Whether much of what is done for prisoners is necessary and warrants taxpayer money. It's the separating off of this procedure as different from much of what is currently covered by taxpayers that I object to more, I think.

There are many people in the world, no doubt, who give a fuck what you do or do not acknowledge, Henry. I am not one of them.

HA!

Mimicry suits you... ;)

Me, sir? A mimic, sir?


How dare you!

How very dare you!


(@ Sundae: *grins*)

I'm sure I do misunderstand, that's why I asked for clarification. I'd like to clarify one of your points first Pam. You did not say "MY penis" as is clear in your post above. Your quote clearly shows you were talking about the the prisoner, and by extension the prisoner's deformity.

I accept your description of your body as your opinion, fine. I struggle to follow through on your word choice, but that's on me. Your penis is deformed? Is it a badly formed vagina? Because it sure looks like a normally formed penis. I haven't seen your genitals Pam, we both know this, I'm using my imagination.

When you talk about the prisoner's penis, you're not talking about your feelings about your own body, but about some third person, someone like me even. If you can suggest that the penis of the prisoner is you could just as easily be talking about a different third person, someone like me even. And that description is wrong. It's an abuse of the language. That's why I spoke up.

It didn't work.

hq reminds me of tw when he's not in his manic phase. he still knows everything, he just doesn't deign to acknowledge it.

i am not sure whats going on, but regarding the OP:

the question is contextual and depends on which aspects are relevant.

for example, if the matter in question is a medical question, i would most likely relate to them as a male who has had major surgery and hormonal treatments, because both facts can be quite relevant.

likewise, if i would be looking for a women to start a family with, a tranny wouldn't be able to provide that. if its a matter of sexual attraction, and the tranny looks too masculine for my taste to me despite alternations (as is often the case), then she isn't of my sexual liking, just as most physically masculine women would be regardless of how they are born. if this isn't the case, and for my sensual experience it feels and looks like i am with a woman, where the fact she was born with male organs merely being a little fact at the back of my head, i doubt it would influence me much, though i would be curious as to how well do the altered genitalia function as far as sexual pleasure and orgasms. i haven't yet being in that situation though.

however if i am talking to her as a friend or a potential friend, then it makes the most sense to me to respect her sense of identity. likewise, if i am looking for some female advice, and she has gained enough experience within a feminine sociological reality, i am likely to treat her as a female.

that's being said, i do not feel i should have my questions and questioning bound by the laws of PC mannerism, and i'm unlikely to consider her a potentially good friend if they get pissed over it. your different, you made the choice to inform me about it, it incites curiousity, and possibilities that you might not feel comfortable with are going to be explored given that information, if you expect me to walk on egg shells for you after doing that, i consider yo a dick no matter what's between your pants.

now, who are we talking about?

Hi Trace!!!!! *hugs*

Where ya been ?

"It didn't work"
 

It was worth a shot...*shrug*

Nice to see you again traceur. How are you? I'll go check for posts from you to find out any new news. :waves:

"now, who are we talking about?"
 

traceur,

My opening post for this thread refers to Ibby.

My position (opposed, it seems, by every one):
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=817432&postcount=164

Much later in the thread: I posted a news bit about a prisoner awarded a sex change by the court.

That should clear up the confusion.

V, I admit I could have phrased my response better. Pronouns give me trouble. *I* know what I mean! The problem is in my way of trying to communicate to YOU what I mean. This is why I turned down the spokestranny position that I was offered a little while ago.

Trace, welcome back!

Point of procedure? Please do not call us "trannies". We consider the term insulting and demeaning, almost on a par with ""he-she" and "shemale". *I* have a thick skin on this point but if any of my sisters are reading and lurking, they may not. The proper PC term is "transwoman", "transman" or "transperson". I am fully aware that I use the term. I personally do not see the harm in a simple word. However, I do take into account the thought and meaning attached to the word. Sometimes, I think our community is TOO sensitive on certain things and is definitely disorganized on all fronts.

Thank you! :)

Love

Pam

Thanks again Pam for the extended clarification, I appreciate it. I'm happy to let it stand at this: "my feelings, put into words, about myself". I totally respect that.

---

regarding the terminology, can you provide some more clarification for me please? I am ignorant, but I don't wish to offend, even unintentionally. My question is this. Taking you as an example, (with your thick skin and all, whew), are you a transman, or a transwoman? I am uncertain about the usage of the "_ _ _ _ _ m a n" or "_ _ _ _ _ w o m a n" in two cases. Am I to consider the current .... ???? state/appearance of the person I'm speaking to/of? or am I to consider what their genitalia indicated when they were born? Or am I to consider the gender they're striving to conform to?... augh... I think I'm over thinking it but I would like to know more. It would be nice to "get it right". Will you please help?

Goddamnit, I left a whole long reply last night but it's not here. Probably previewed and didn't post, or some stupid shit.
Anyway, basically yes. Prisoners get treated better than vets, and I question what's necessary vs what's job security for the docs and shrinks. They have a basically free hand to tinker to their hearts and wallets delight.

Thank you V. I will be glad to help you out regarding gender/pronouns/terminology. I am mostly speaking for myself, but what I recommend applies to pretty much all of us except the really militant ones. :)

Please use the gender/pronouns of the gender that we are presenting to you at the time. Even if we are not "fooling" anyone. Yes, some of us go back and forth. Those would be the ones that are not yet "out" to certain people. They may be protecting themselves, their job, or friends/family. Please respect that. If you are in doubt, please ask us in private. Most will tell you and thank you for your consideration.

The proper term (for me) is transsexual woman, or just woman/female/she/her. Never "it". In my case, you are unlikely to ever see me in male mode ever again. But there are those who are still coming out. If they have told you, but not someone else, take it as a compliment and a vote of confidence.

Transwoman is also acceptable. Once I am through the transition process (I will share this with everyone here), the proper term is female, woman, she/her etc. No trans.

Transsexuality is considered a medical condition and, in most cases, curable with medication and corrective surgery. Once "cured", the dysphoria disappears for the vast majority of us. And our outward presentation is in harmony with our internal identity.

That's really helpful Pam, thank you very much.

Perhaps now might be a good time to address the topic of how to talk to a transsexual. I speak mostly for the MtF crowd here. But many comments apply to transmen as well. Just think of us as regular people. We are not some exotic creature in a zoo, we are not going to bite your head off or jump your bones right there.

But, while I generally welcome questions if they are asked from a genuine desire to learn and understand me, there are some that are insulting.
Ms. Calpernia Addams addresses some of these in the following video. While it is done from her unique brand of wit and is funny, there is a kernel of truth hidden inside as well. I have been asked most of these questions already and, while I handle them with good grace (usually), deep inside, this is often what I am thinking.





Now that that is out of the way, I hereby authorise everyone to ask me, as a representative of the greater transsexual community, most any question. Please be respectful and I will return the favor.

Love

Pamela

Well that's disappointing. :haha: