|
Very helpful, very entertaining. I thought about saying "hysterical"... I reconsidered. (but then I just said it, so, dumbass=me).
Seriously Pam, that was great. I think hq should consider question #7. For myself, I actually have had a version of question #9 in my head "Are you a man or a woman?", though I phrased it differently "How should I refer to you?". In fact, it's kind of what this whole thread's about. Anyhow, I found the video useful and funny. She's got that eye roll *down*, I would not want it used against me. :) Thanks again. |
"question #7"
I'd be glad to consider it...unfortunately the machine I'm on has no sound, so -- if the question is part of the video -- I can't access it. Just post it and I'll consider it. # "we are not going to bite your head off or jump your bones right there" Of course not...don’t think any one in this thread suggested anything like that. # "I hereby authorise everyone to ask me, as a representative of the greater transsexual community, most any question." Okeedoke. Ibby, in-forum, has mentioned his 'feminine side' and/or 'feeling female' (I paraphrase). Is this the same for you, and -- if so -- can you describe concretely what this means? |
Quote:
Her reply: Quote:
|
"bad question number 7: Anything about my genitals."
Why should I consider this question?
Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt? The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread. # "womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis" Agreed. It's defined by chromosome. How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining). |
Quote:
I agree about it being irrelevant*, but you certainly posted about it in this thread, you opened the thread with the very idea at the center of your post. *Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours Quote:
|
V, note that HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he".
|
I missed that.
:banghead: |
It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.
|
Quote:
|
V,
There's a context to my (and every one else's) posts. If you dis-embed one post, one line, from the others then you can make it seem that I mean 'this' instead of 'that'. Yes, I "*certainly posted about it in this thread", but within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness. As I say in post 164... 'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).' # "Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours" Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself. ## Sun, "HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"." Because he's a guy. ## Dana, "...a turd when it's floating in a sewer" Of all the folks disagreeing with me, you, Dana are the most puzzling. (1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'. I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'. (2) As liberal or progressive or whatever, I thought you'd appreciate 'tolerance'. I make no threats and levy no insults against Ibby or any other transgendered person. I tell him (over and over) he SHOULD DO EXACTLY AS HE LIKES WITH HIS FLESH and this isn't enough for you. As I will not submit to the current 'correct' view, my tolerance (indifference, really) is dismissed and I'm called 'bully' and 'cunt'. Fundamentally: Ibby wants to be called 'she' when in fact he is 'he' and I'm the bad guy because I won't walk the proscribed line dictated by Ibby and his supporters. *shrug* *and, if that had been my only post in this thread, you might have a platform to call me out, but it wasn't my only post. |
I think, if someone feels insulted by a certain label, the refusal to use whatever terminogy they've expressed they would prefer is obdurate and flat out rude.
Sort of like referring to a female as "woman" to her face. Ie: "When is dinner going to be ready, woman?". Maybe she'd prefer to be called domestic goddess or supreme commander of the kitchen, or even Susan. While "woman" is technically accurate, if she finds it insulting to be generalized and minimized, considerate individuals will call her whatever name she prefers, instead. It's pretty much a sideways "fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want". |
Quote:
Well, as a historian, 'facts' are very much a starting point. The real work lies in interpretation. And 'facts' as they are presented can be tricky beasts indeed, particularly when we are dealing with individual experience and identity. I can see how my responding with 'feelings' might confuse you. But, my particular fields of interest/expertise, are very much concerned with experience and identity. I have two main areas of interest which crossover with each other at various points. The first, and central to my research is the soldier experience during the long eighteenth century, and particularly during the Napoleonic era. How they identified themselves and were identified by others is a fairly fundamental part of that. The second area of interest and the area I usually teach, is gender in the same period. How was it constructed, applied, accepted, performed, or rejected? How and why did gender constructions change? How was gender used culturally? for example the masculinity of British national identity, versus the femininity which the British ascribed to their 'natural and necessary enemy' the French; the gendering of the 'other' in the context of imperialism and exploration, the use of gender to codify and understand alternate cultures (the taxonomic studies of the female form in different races - with each racial type ranked according to the size, shape, pertness of the breasts, and the degree to which each culture conformed to 'proper' gender roles (e.g the separate spheres of male and female lives); scientific understandings of gender and the medicalisation of the female within that The ways in which masculinity was constructed and applied, and how that changed. The ways in which femininity was constructed and applied and how that changed. The way individuals experienced and performed gender, and how they self-identified (did the middling orders of 18th century Britain conform, for example, to the 'separate spheres' model which permeates popular culture, advice books, scientific and philosophical tracts? ). The ways in which gender constructions loosened and tightened according to the needs and insecurities of the time. How new ways of approaching the natural world (including humans) altered the ways in which men and women thought of themselves and each other. I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry. |
henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.
|
Quote:
I cannot really speak for Ibby. She will have to answer for herself. But I will venture to say that Ibby is not a transsexual. She is further to the male side of the gender spectrum than I am. She is exploring her identity and looking for her place in the world. That's fine. I know where I belong. My feelings are those of a female, judging by what women and therapists (I've had several over the years) tell me. I do know that I do not and never have fit in with men. I just don't have a lot in common with them. Even as a child, I stayed closer to my mother than my father. I preferred being in the kitchen cooking to watching football with the men. Wine to beer. Talking to playing. In short, I displayed feminine traits from an early age. When I discovered that clothes can change the way I feel, oh BOY! I went to town. But in private while I explored this new avenue. I quickly learned to be ashamed and to feel guilt. This is something that I continue to struggle to overcome. What I finally realized, is that women's clothing felt natural to me and men's clothing felt unnatural. This holds true today and forever. I hope that answered your question. Pam |
Slight side step, because my head's in the eighteenth-century today :P
I've taken this from wikipedia, because I havent the heart to go searching through texts: Quote:
It has taken a very, very long time, for our culture(s) to accept something which it has always had within it. I hope, one day, discussions like this one will seem as odd to contemporaries as discussions on women's wandering wombs, and the genetic inferiority of the black man do to us now. Both of which, incidentally, had scientific 'facts' to give them weight. |
"fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want".
Certainly, that's one possible interpretation. Just not the only one. I'm sure when Norton demanded to be called 'emperor', some refused for the reason you cite above. Others, I'm sure, refused to call Norton 'emperor' because, in fact, he was not an emperor. # "I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry." And we don't have to. Since this is the closest I'm gonna get to a 'let's agree to disagree', I'll just say: thanks, Dana. # "He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk." That's one interpretation. Another is, it irks me when folks demand I toss away what's real in favor of not-real. # "I hope that answered your question." You did. Thank you for the civility. Your post raises other questions for me, but I'll save those for a later time. |
Quote:
|
Good morning hq.
Quote:
BUT, there are parts where I have trouble extending this line of thought, the first being no memory or knowledge of such a demand. If you can, would you please show me where this demand is being made? Secondly, the whole idea of what pronoun to use is not something that is always unambiguously definite. We use pronouns with some latitude all the time. I refer to you as "he", but that's just a convention. I don't know you, I don't know about your genitals, your state of mind, your attitudes, your chromosomes, none of that. In fact, what I can say about you with confidence is that I type posts in response to posts associated with your username. Those posts have no gender. But I use that pronoun nonetheless. What is right and fair to be referred to as "he" is widely variable, and so is what is right and fair to be considered "male". I get being hung up on language--I do. I couldn't let Pam's remarks about a penis being a physical deformity go unchallenged. Just language, right? But I had to respond. And I did, and so did she, it got worked out. I see your tilting at this windmill in this light. We, humans, use language to work stuff out. Your inability/refusal to capitulate to Ibby's demands is clearly justified, to you. To me, and to others who have commented here, it is not justified, it is simply a rejection of broadly accepted conventions of cellar etiquette, social norms, and casual usage of language among regular people. You're just saying "no". That's fine, fine, really. But it's not "right". You might be able to say with a great deal of certainty something about Ibby's chromosomes, you might be able to confidently aver to a physical description of his genitals. Those kinds of things are amenable to objective measurement. Being male is not as objectively, atomically measurable. And the usage of a given pronoun is even less so. You can choose to use whatever words you like, but the logic of your argument--Ibby has xy chromosomes therefore has a penis therefore is male therefore requires the use of the pronoun "he"--breaks down under scrutiny in our immediate frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what your logic looks like from here. **** Quote:
Think about the experiences you have throughout the day, using a very helpful linguistic handle like a pronoun that is masculine or feminine, but without actually knowing about genitals. The cues used to reach that grammatical conclusion are the kinds of things I'm talking about that justify "he" or "she". I use those, and so do you, without actually knowing what's in their pants. It is the running total of these inputs that is the "source of maleness, the source of femaleness". A penis or a vagina, the direct physical result of one's chromosomes, contributes to this running total, and in most folks, it is a reinforcing contribution. But not always. You have certainly had the experience, or at least can imagine dealing with someone you assessed to be male only to find out later that that person didn't have a penis. In that case, her genitals aren't adding to that running total. I reckon in Pam's case, or Ibby's case, or Calpernia's case, their genitals are a factor that detract from that running total; their sum total is female *despite* their genitals, not because of them. Genitalia is a factor in gender, not a conclusion. I believe you are confusing causation and correlation. tl;dr hq=penis is male, V=no it is not. **** Quote:
|
Quote:
you *know* I drink a lot in the morning :eyebrow: |
Quote:
|
Permitted yes. Unchallenged? *shrugs*
|
Quote:
"I demand you delete that post, as I find it intolerably irritating." *** Now, I wonder what will happen with this paradox I've set. A broadly accepted convention of cellar etiquette is that posts are not deleted. It is not universally so, many posts are deleted but they are almost always related to spam. Yet, if you "permit" my demand, the post will go away, my rejection of the convention will have triumphed. Your desire will also be granted. We shall see. |
V
"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."
He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'. # Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position. If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do. # 'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome. You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position. Stop it. In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real. # "how can you support this statement?" It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics). |
Quote:
Always THINK Never GROUP-THINK |
Did we already talk about how many legs a sheep would have if you call its tail a leg?
Here's what the folks over at snopes have to say Quote:
|
Total fail.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Womanhood, as it's generally defined, is comprised of societal expectations, pretty much everything that is expected of, allowed, given to or taken from a woman because the body that human has dangly bits on the chest and not between the legs. There are manners/mannerisms for women that men don't exhibit (and the other way around), there are expectations for women that men aren't expected to do, etc. During embryo formation, there's a ton of things that can go awry and one of them is the formation of a human chimera. This can happen when a zygote or even an embryo absorbs a second (or more) embryos. This is how we get people with two different blood types in their body or two completely different types of hairs on their head (ie a blend of fine Norwegian blond and thick Mediterranean brown). If something as invisible to the eye as a blood type can be blended that way, I don't see why all or part of an XX zygote's endocrine system couldn't be absorbed by an XY zygote. If this XY comes to full term and gets born, you'll have a male human baby that will eventually be getting the hormone cocktail that a female human should have and less or none of what a male should have. All that would be well and good in terms of survival, with the possibility that it'd be less likely for him to mate because he wouldn't give off the visual and hormonal triggers that would attract the female humans. It would also go unnoticed until after the child has started school and truly begins his social training, interacting regularly with other males and females of similar age. But the issue is, once he's old enough to start seriously taking in the role his apparent gender plays in society, he's not going to feel right about it because no one else like him will seem the same way. He'll be steered towards things that a young XY male with XY-expected hormones should be interested in, but he'll find himself more interested in what the XX-expected hormones are telling him. Then, over time, society will either tell him "No, you're wrong! Shape up, you little pussy!" or "Be who you are, free spirit!" or both at once, depending on what the parents and immediate surroundings are like. So, he'll pretend all his life, for fear of societal repercussions, or he'll act on it, despite the societal repercussions. Or he'll kill himself because that'll seem easier than choosing. In a nutshell (see what I did there?), this kid is gonna have a bad time either way and it all began waaaay before any concept of woman- or man-hood came into it. |
Quote:
conventions of cellar etiquette exist. I defy you to deny this. I "THINK" that one of those conventions is that we refer to each other by the way each of us introduces ourselves. This self-naming, this self-definition happens all over the board, and all over the board those definitions are used, almost universally, as the person who has stated the definition has stated the definition. As an example, we used to have a well established user name "Br****a". The person behind that user name (asked and had some administrator-level person) changed the user name to something completely different, Trilby. There is a convention, a widely accepted belief and/or action, to adopt this new name. This is considered good etiquette. It is not my idea. I am not making it up. I am not "defining" it, I am pointing it out. Its meaning is that it exists. Many times there are multiple names, nicknames if you will, that are also used. There are conventions around these names too. For example, you are sometimes referred to as UT; I am sometimes referred to as V. This convention is not a breach of cellar etiquette, but calling Lola Bunny or sexobon by their previous handle would be in bad etiquette since they've specifically asked to be disassociated with those descriptions. It's not me making it up, it's just me observing it. Specifically, deliberately, repeatedly disregarding a dwellar's reasonable request to be referred to in a particular way is a breach of etiquette. That IS my THINKING, irrespective of the group I'm in or not in. |
No necessarily germane to this discussion, but prompted by CW's excellent post above.
We had a child at my school with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY syndrome). This was apparent in some of the classic symptoms of learning difficulties, poor speech and motor control and coordination. But it also meant that when he reached puberty he might develop female sexual characteristics, for example growing breasts. All we could offer him at our school was meeting his Special Educational Needs. He's going to need more specific help in the future. "Treatment may include hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, speech therapy and counselling." |
Quote:
Men, property, slaves, freedom, these terms are not as simple as a lamb's tail. What a man is depends more on context, as does slavery and freedom. Gender is much closer to these than it is to a lamb's tail when it comes to absolute definition. |
"calling the tail a leg does not make it one"
Take a look at the words under Ibby's name in any post: "She", not "he", guys.
You may take this as 'request'...I don't. # Indeed: I introduced 'cock', but it has not been my focus. My focus is on the reality of a chromosome and what follows or extends from that chromosome. What follows or extends from the source are characteristics...remove the characteristics (by surgery, for example) and the source remains (you can stick a rod into a tail -- to make it useful as a leg -- and it's still a tail; you can remove the tail and the fact that the animal is genetically meant to have one remains). This is my point, my focus. # No doubt 'he' is used in many ways, but, what is the primary definition and reason for 'he'? To signify 'male' (a state dictated by a chromosome). # When a person says, 'I am *transgendered', why should I 'not' accept that self-assessment? And, no, taking his word for it -- "I am a transgendered woman" -- is not the equivalent of agreeing to call 'he' 'she'. Therefore I rely on the testimony of the person in question, not shifty cultural tripe. If he lies then, shame on him. ## Please, Cyber, I'm not talking about 'manhood' as cultural artifact...I'm talking about maleness a physical reality sourced in the physical. I know I can shorthand myself from time to time, but my words have been clear throughout, so -- even with shorthanding -- my meanings and intent are clear. None of you is stupid, so I assume (especially in the case of V) that time worn strategy of 'what's that you say?' (pretended misunderstanding so as to distract and wear down the offender) is being deployed (and has been for much of this thread). Pick at nits and -- it is hoped -- the offender will just 'accept' and move on. Good luck with that. Lots of, as I say, shifty definitions are thrown about as though -- again -- believing something or saying it enough times negates what's real. It doesn't. *meaning 'I feel like the other sex' (and, perhaps, have altered myself to make flesh agree with sentiment)...a statement of self-assessment that any one is welcome to make...however, I'm not obligated to observe that assessment by accepting a redefining of 'she' to include XY. 'nuff said till tomorrow. |
Quote:
Being dead is worse than being beaten. Hundreds of us are murdered every year. Less than half are prosecuted. In the US, the most popular defense is the trans panic defense. Despite it's weak legal standing, it has been advanced in many of the cases involving murder of a trans person. There have been several high profile cases in the last ten years, most notably the Gwen Araujo murder trial. Most of the murders are never reported in the news and if they are, they get scant mention of any facts other than the trans-identity of the victim. Salacious information sells more advertising and garners more views than plain old information I guess. But then the news media almost inevitably get the gender wrong and refer to us as our birth gender and, if known, birth name. Even if the person's name had been legally changed. We just don't get no respect in major media outlets. Even in the best of the options, shame is also a negative event. No one should be ashamed of who they are. You certainly are not. No one really is. Except us. And we are only ashamed until we learn to NOT be ashamed. And that process would be much faster and less traumatic if everyone else would just get over themselves and accept us for who we are and not what they think we are. {off soapbox for now} Pam |
Quote:
Please correct me if I am mistaken. Pam |
Sorry Pam I wasn't clear enough. Violent assault may well result in murder, but I was setting that against the state sanctioned execution of the past. Also I absolutely see shame as a negative. Nobody should feel shame over something as basic and fundamental as gender identity.
Basically my point was that we have come so far but have a way yet to go. |
Just heard on the radio a trail for Saturday Live. Apparently one of the pieces today is looking at what happens to couples when a man and woman become two women after the husband has gender reassignment.
|
I heard that story, or a story just like it. It has a happy ending.
|
I am LIVING that!
So far, a happy story with a happy ending every now and then. |
Quote:
As far as those members of the (twenty-something, queer-as-in-fuck-you, anti-establishment) trans* community that I'm familiar with are concerned, the demarcation of "transgender" versus "transexual" is entirely a matter of whether the trans* person using the term prefers one or the other to describe themselves. as in, I prefer being described as transgender or just trans* rather than transexual, but I don't make a serious distinction between the two terms beyond which I like better. The fact that the trans* community - to what small extent there's anything resembling a "community" - is so disparate and constantly shifting, it's sometimes hard to put together a unified set of terms and language. I hope i don't come off as belligerent, I honestly don't understand your distinctions here - how can I be transgender, but not transexual? The only set of definitions I've heard that seem to encompass your distinction is whether or not I plan on having SRS. Is that what you mean by saying I'm one but not the other, that I don't "plan to play for the other team"? |
Here is a link to some articles written by a friend of mine regarding mental sex in terms of story development:
http://dramaticapedia.com/tag/mental-sex/ She is also transgender. |
Is henry an Oklahoma judge?
Quote:
|
OMG. The magic book that claims all forms of life were created simultaneously in their present form is used in a court of law. I may have to faint.
Where's the separation of church and state when you need them? Also what are hermaphrodites? God's practice, or his upgrade? If he couldn't control DNA he shouldn't have used it in the first place. |
Ibby, you have hit on one of my hot button topics with the TG community; the complete lack of agreement on definitions and terms. If we cannot even agree on who/what we are, how can we expect the rest of society to accept us?
I use and define the terms this way: TS = transsexual = a person who desires and is actively engaged in chemical and/or surgical alteration of one's body to parallel one's mental status. TG = transgender = a person who is not comfortable with one's gender but who's dysphoria is not strong enough to impair daily life. CD = crossdresser = a person who wears clothing appropriate to the opposite sex but who does so out of preference and not as a sexual fetish. Such a person does not generally experience dysphoria. TV = transvestite = a person who wears the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of sexual fulfillment, but not outside of a sexual context. Such a person does not generally experience dysphoria. Androgyne = a person who displays superficial secondary characteristics of both genders. May or may not experience dysphoria and rarely at an elevated level. Drag King/Queen = a person who dresses in the clothing of the opposite sex (usually to extremes) for purposes of entertainment or performance. Usually but not always are gay/lesbian but experience no dysphoria and have no desire to alter their appearance other than superficially. Hermaphrodite = a person (very rare) who displays primary physical characteristics of both sexes at the same time. Usually, these tend towards one or the other strongly. Most often, they are diagnosed at birth and surgically "corrected" immediately, but may be incorrectly gendered by the parents/doctors. Asexual = a person who is gender neutral and prefers to be referred to as a "third sex", that is; neither male nor female. I am not sure about these people. I will not bother to define sub-categories and fetishes as they get too numerous to deal with here. Mind you, these are MY definitions and may or may not be accepted by anyone else. I do not hold truck with those who are "trannier than thou" and seek to de-legitimize others based on where on the spectrum they are. I fully accept that some TSs do not seek surgery for whatever reasons. I also accept that some may be in more than one category or may change categories over time. Dysphoria is different for each individual. I hold that transsexualism is a medical condition that is self-diagnosed and treatable with drug therapy and surgical correction. The degree of treatment is dependent on the individual. Once "cured" through a successful treatment regimen and psychological and social transition, one no longer suffers from the condition and should be legally and socially recognized as the target gender and not as a transsexual. The term 'transsexual' should be used as a noun and not as an adjective. In my opinion, of course. |
Wait a minute... which image is he using? Males and females look quite different, which is the basic issue that a lot of people have. So... either God has got two (or more?) images or is a hermaphrodite. And if God is sexless, then neither males nor females are in God's image.
|
Quote:
|
I think perhaps we haven't been privy to the whole of your journey Ibs. When you first 'came out' you were talking in terms of gender exploration and not really feeling that either 'he' or 'she' was entirely appropriate.
|
Quote:
:welcome: I think I missed the announcement also, Dana. Ibby, you are on report for not telling us everything! Just wait until electrolysis! :shocking: |
I'm... on HRT as of today. Whoa.
|
Is it hot in here?
|
Congratulations!
Remember the day well, so you can talk about it to others. The "The Day I Started HRT" story is almost mandatory for newbs. |
honestly there's not much story though! i was almost late for my appointment cause it was a morning appointment, and then i had class, and we got out early, but i forgot my wallet so I had to go back to the apartment and get it to go pick up the prescription after class. I also bought some pretzels while i was at riteaid. Now i'm eating cheese and pretzels and watching Arrested Development.
|
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Wait, you're starting with the HRT?
Attachment 40994 I thought you had a Subaru, but okay, have fun! Attachment 40995 |
How much does that car cost, I wonder?
|
About a quarter million, I think I heard somewhere, and about 100,000 a season to race.
|
Quote:
Ibby will hang with ladies like Bri and me. Eat nachos and drink beer. And watch... Torchwood I guess. Dunno about Bri on that one. Dana and me maybe. |
|
That's astonishing. Wow.
Also, don't the starting pics look a little like Ibs? |
It's so subtle, and yet so obvious. That's a very talented surgeon.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.