Mr. Reed, it seems, is another gender fascist wannabe.
His article, which starts with a rather nasty portrayal of what he apparently believes those who support the HBS concept to be like, then turns into a rant against people who, gosh darn it, just can't see that they have to be gender rebels like him.
First off, in spite of what he thinks HBS people are like, the first thing he needs to realize is that we are not part of his beloved "trans community." Then he launches into this clueless bit of screed:
For all we’ve been through, trans people are not necessarily above falling into the same binary or hierarchical attitudes about gender common to our culture, nor does finding oneself on the receiving end of cissexism necessarily cause someone to immediately divest themselves of all the cisnormative ideas that have been drilled into them over the course of their lives. Deciding to transition doesn’t magically or instantly cause someone to let go of things like gender binarism, genital essentialism, misogyny, transphobia, the confusion of gender expression and role with gender identity, heteronormativity and heterosexism, the idea of sexuality and gender having a deterministic relationship to one another, the idea that gender and sex have a deterministic relationship to one another, or the one million and one ways that any given concept, object, characteristic or behaviour is gendered one way or the other.I sort of, kind, imagine that Mr. Reed would expect, and more likely vehemently demand that his views be respected, and yet, he seems to presume that there is some requirement that anyone who is transsexual must somehow think like he does. Sorry, but I happen to believe in the gender binary, that having a penis does make you a male, and that wishing to keep it does make you a man. On the other hand, I think that men in dresses like Mr. Reed are the misogynistic ones, and they often turn out to be very homophobic since they cannot let go of their heterosexuality. Further they think that gender expression is the equivalent of gender identity, and that gender identity is all that really matters (i.e. say you are a woman, and magically you are...at least until you say you are a man again). While I have gay and lesbian friends, i also have enough sense to recognize that heterosexuality is the norm (that simply means that it happens far more often than not, not that it is "better") and that yes, sex and gender NORMALLY are in sync, and further, that for people where they are not in sync (unlike someone who CHOOSES to rebel against their true gender) that person is healthier and happier when they are brought into sync.
In short, I think that Mr. Reed, and all the other transgender kooks are, well kooks. He rejects the idea that transsexualism (or HBS) has any legitimate basis, apparently thinking, as so many do, that it really is, "just a lifestyle choice." Of course, things like crossdressing are just choices, or more specifically, fetishes, though give enough time, they do grow into lifestyle choices.
Oh well, more and more, I try to ignore fools like this, but sometimes you just have to say something. If he wants to be a gender rebel, that is certainly his right. But it is my right to have a good laugh at his expense, to consider him to be a kook, and to certainly oppose his attempts to undermine the very fabric of our society.
.jpg)
29 comments:
Um... "Mr." Natalie Reed here.
I AM transsexual, binary-identified, and am not a non-op.
It's a rather stupid assumption to just decide that EVERYONE who disagrees with your views MUST be one of those "transgender kooks". Rather silly to think that a binary-identified transsexual woman like yourself simply MUST agree with your views.
Yeesh.
If I'm a "Mr." and a "he", so are you, "Jennifer".
Also, my sexual orientation is straight / androphilic.
So another ridiculous, inaccurate assumption you made. Congrats!
What I said in that opening paragraph about being femme, straight, binary-identified and conventionally transsexual IS TRUE. I just happen to not think it makes me more of a "real" women than those who aren't.
And regarding gender identity vs. gender expression:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/21/gender-expression-is-not-gender-identity/
So.. um, good job on making yourself look quite foolish by relying on assumptions and prejudices without bothering to check any facts, Mr. "Jennifer".
dear mr.jennifer, to refer to some as a "fascist"&a "kook" for not alligning themselves with your world view of gender conformity is both deluded&rather sad.
every bit of this post is writhing with hatred&transphobia.
you're extremely arrogant&narrow minded, not mention down right abusive for repeatedly purposefully misgendering her.
every rank bit of this post is a very slanderous personal attack. very very low blow, sir.
you have the right to laugh at her expense? if you truly believe that you are a very scary individual&im truly shocked you actual have gay friends who will tolerate your filthy dehumanizing attitude.
"undermining the fabric of society"?
is THAT a joke? how is being trans undermining anyone's anything?
just because you're incapable of grasping the concept that not all individuals in this society fall neatly into the pink or blue boxes that SOCIETY CREATED, does not mean they are undermining that same society. though id likely welcome the undermining of constant labelling&mistreatment of individuals who dont fit the model that is clearly so inherently flawed to begin with.
and what do you really find about this society to be so perfect in the first place that it need not be challenged or changed? please.
maybe stick to playing with your power tools while drinking beer&watching sports.
cause men have penises and thats what they do
No, not everyone who disagreees with me is a transgender kook. Now, if you care to state that you absolutely do not identify as transgender, I will edit my post to only refer to you as a kook. As to the rest, I stand by whati said.
Oh,and your calling me a man does not make it so.
And I could are less what your orientation is. Lesbians are women too, even ones with a transsexual history.
as to this fool who calls himself Aquarish, thanks for a good laugh. I mean we have rabid political correctness, along with the silliest of gender theory, topped off with the aaumption that all gays think alike. A perfect trifecta of looney comedy.
Again, call me what you want. I am quite secure in my womanhood and I donor need silly rules to protect some fragile ego.
Feel free to come back again. I have not had such a good laugh in some time.
Congratulations, Jennifer! You win my "most ill-informed and poorly-thought-out post I've read all week" award.
For your prize, I present you with this food for thought: "your calling me a man does not make it so" is true; but you seem to have missed the real point implied by that accusation, which is that it is a sentence equally true and valid for Ms. Natalie Reed. (I.e., "your calling her a man does not make it so.")
And,diotimajash, you miss an even bigger point...my statement was one of pure perception. I seriously believe, based on statements he made, that Reed is a man. That is my sincerely held belief, and one I expressed. Now, clearly, Mr. Reed is offended by this, as shown by his calling in reinforcements. But hey, the more the merrier. I love watching transgender kooks acting silly.
So wait... I'm a man on what basis, John?
The fact that I don't support the HBS mentality?
Because frankly, I've looked into your history. The oscillations of your legal name. Your back and forth hemming and hawing on your identity. Your multiple detransitions and purges. Your late transition.
I fit more neatly into the idiotic "true transsexual" / HBS archetype than you do!!!
Or have the requirements for HBS suddenly been amended to also include "agrees with HBS"? Because that should illustrate just how detached you've become from reality.
As for my sexual orientation, I bring it up because you DO apparently care. You brought it up. You made this ridiculous assumption that I'm a homophobic gynephile who "can't let go" of her "heterosexuality". I'm pointing out that I'm NOT gynephilic to illustrate just how ridiculous your assumptions have been.
So really:
On what criteria, John, am I a man and you're a woman?
John? How silly. I guess you cling to the old idea that we all choose names that start with the same first name as our "boy" name.
And there is an interesting word..."identity." That is part of why I see you as a man. You parrot the TG party line. I see no evidence that you remotely understand what transsexual is really is. Clearly you need all the props and ego strokes that go with being a transsexual. One thing I have discovered is that there is no clear cut division. I know some who cling to the "early vs. late" silliness. That is, at best, overly simplistic. And at worst, it buys into the false science of people like Ray Blanchard and Michael Bailey. Of course, even they are having to do some serious back-pedalling to save their theories from being completely proven false.
I do notice you take everything personally, which indicates that you are not secure in your identity. For example, I did not say what I thought your sexuality was. I made a general observation about MANY, not ALL people who share your points of view.
But, to put things in their simplest terms, you identify as transgender. Which means, in effect, you cling to your past. You don't want to let go of having been a man. You see, you can be a transgender, or you can be a woman. For example, take the case of Jenna Talackova. This person is not really a woman. Talackova is simply another kook looking to gain fame and fortune from being "transgender." This person has no real desire to be a woman. He is acting like a glorified drag queen. I wondered, at first, how it came out that he was transgender. Did someone dig into his past, like happened with Caroline Cossey? Nope, he certainly made no attempt to hide the fact he had participated in what are, in effect, drag pageants. He knew what would happen, and I imagine he already had Gloria Allred on retainer for when the inevitable happened. But hey, he gets his fifteen minutes of fame, transsexuals get associated with the freaks and kooks, and you can be quite happy.
What makes you a man? That is really something you need to answer for yourself. A hint though, having SRS does not make you a woman. I know of more than one post-op who was born a man, and who will die a man.
Referring to Natalie as "Mr" . . . very clever. You might enjoy some Easter tea partying with the Sarah Palin Society for Biblically Correct Essentials.
Comparing MS Natalie Reed's well-written post, and the almost puerile retort of yours that somehow presuppose itself to be an argument, I'd say you've represented your case very poorly.
If you've embraced a level of Stockholm Syndrome to such an extent that you've allowed outmoded medical discourse to become your surrogate parent . . . good luck with that. I know, even by responding, I've done little more than given you something to fill the loneliness of your days.
Nope, not meant to be clever at all. Just an expression of my perception of this person. That is, Reed is another typical transgender who went all the way in what I am sure he feels was the ultimate act of gender rebellion. Shoot, maybe it is, but in truth, it accomplished nothing.
And I suppose your feeble attempt at an insult is assumed, by you, to be devastating. But, you see, I am not of that mindset. This is one of the hallmarks of the transgender kooks...they think we all think alike. They are absolutely amazed when they encounter someone who is not willing to follow in lockstep, identifying in the "right" way, and are even more amazed that someone does not think in the "right" way as well.
As to your assessment of my article versus Mr. Reeds? You have a right to your opinion, no matter how silly it is. Personally, I take it as a compliment that you do not approve of it. I would be rather concerned if you did.
And as to your final, rather laughable attempt, to insult me, well it just shows how far up your anus your head really is. I would call that icing on the cake. It assures me that I am dealing with someone with no real grasp of reality.
"For example, take the case of Jenna Talackova. This person is not really a woman. Talackova is simply another kook looking to gain fame and fortune from being "transgender." This person has no real desire to be a woman. He is acting like a glorified drag queen."
Right... you do realise that Jenna transitioned as a teenager, don't you? It just seems a little odd that a teenage "boy" would choose a path like that to gain fame, when there are many other, much easier options available.
And aside from that, you do realise that many, if not most, transsexual people (particularly women) have a tendency to prefer "transgender" simply because there is a heavy social stigma attached to the word "transsexual", even though they're aware that using an umbrella term in this way isn't wholly accurate?
And, you do realise that saying "I am a woman", and saying "my gender identity is female" are semantically identical, no matter how much you'd like to pretend that the word identity means you are still a man? Come on, how does that work? You, pre-transition, show up and say "I'm a woman", to which someone replies, "so your gender identity is female". Which you deny, and reiterate your original statement. You know that makes you, by your own logic, sound like a kook yourself? Because, according to you, by your own words, if you have a penis, you're a man. Well, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not, so this won't be necessary), but at some point past you made this claim "I'm a woman" while hiding some suspiciously male genitalia in your pants. You big liar you.
Your whole premise is absurd. You are claiming, on the basis of a word which is different from your own preferred word (a distinction which doesn't exist in many languages other than English, which makes your whole point a rather ethnocentric exercise in silliness), that Natalie is a man. As opposed to you, who is a woman. Because she uses the word "transgender". Even though she is not a gender rebel. She is not a man. She is clearly a woman: a feminine, binary identified, heterosexual (androphilic), woman. So... I'm unclear on what criteria you are using to claim she is a man. A straight answer would be nice, you know...
You said "What makes you a man? That is really something you need to answer for yourself. A hint though, having SRS does not make you a woman. I know of more than one post-op who was born a man, and who will die a man." So, what makes these "men" men? Other than your opinion? Describing themselves with a word you don't like? I would dearly like to know, since you seem to be all-knowing on this topic.
Dear Jennifer,
"Sorry, but I happen to believe in the gender binary, that having a penis does make you a male, and that wishing to keep it does make you a man."
"Oh,and your calling me a man does not make it so."
these two statements seem to be contradictory.
i believe that everyone's identity is their own,and to impose your ideas on them is awful. i'm a genderqueer transgirl; i don't entirely identify as female, and i plan to keep my bits. this should not make me any less of a girl.
personally, while i wish you did not have the views you do, you have every right to hold them. i won't tell you you have to change your opinion. i will ASK, however, that you please refrian from insulting and degrading those of us who don't have the same views as you. i am trying to be respectful and non-insulting, and if you reply i hope you will do me the same courtesy.
Lizzie
"Right... you do realise that Jenna transitioned as a teenager, don't you? It just seems a little odd that a teenage "boy" would choose a path like that to gain fame, when there are many other, much easier options available."
This, of course, is a classic example of a rather lame straw argument. This person has created an obviously false position, and then tried to attribute it to me.
"And aside from that, you do realise that many, if not most, transsexual people (particularly women) have a tendency to prefer "transgender" simply because there is a heavy social stigma attached to the word "transsexual", even though they're aware that using an umbrella term in this way isn't wholly accurate?"
And this is just repeating a truism that, well, is not true. First off, true transsexuals are rare. The vast majority of people who call themselves transsexuals are not. Which raises the question....if there is such a heavy social stigma attached to "transsexual" why is it that every transgender kook wants to either claim to be a surgery tracked transsexual (but never seems to progress forward) or claims to be a non-op transsexual, who claims that being a transsexual does not mean they have to give up that body part that is most precious to them? Seems we have a bit of a problem here. Either you are ignorant of the facts, or you are simply lying.
"And, you do realise that saying "I am a woman", and saying "my gender identity is female" are semantically identical, no matter how much you'd like to pretend that the word identity means you are still a man? Come on, how does that work? You, pre-transition, show up and say "I'm a woman", to which someone replies, "so your gender identity is female". Which you deny, and reiterate your original statement. You know that makes you, by your own logic, sound like a kook yourself? Because, according to you, by your own words, if you have a penis, you're a man. Well, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not, so this won't be necessary), but at some point past you made this claim "I'm a woman" while hiding some suspiciously male genitalia in your pants. You big liar you."
Actually, I have never said that TRUE transsexuals who are pre-op (and I mean PRE-OP as in they are actively seeking to have surgery, not someone who says "I am pre=op, and oh, if I win the lottery I will have surgery....maybe...but in the meantime I need a new Miata, and I might buy a house, and I need to upgrade my computer to the latest and greatest, and gee I just don't have the money for surgery..."). What I have said is that being a woman actually means something. It is not something chosen on a whim. It is not a matter of simply saying "I am a woman," but is a state of being that is quite objective. And part of being a woman is not being a man. When someone who is transgender make a public spectacle of their self, they are showing they are not really a woman at all. Being a woman is not about "identity." It is about having a brain that is sexually differentiated in the female directions. It is also about letting go of being a male, period. Something identifying as "transgender" indicates that one is unable to do.
The bottom line is behavior. Men who crossdress remain men while, as they like put it, "en femme." I know of more than a few examples of "post-ops" who act, usually quite cluelessly, like men. In some cases, they even look quite credible as women, but the moment they open their mouths, all pretense of womanhood is lost.
Being a woman requires being a woman, not being a transwoman, or some other cutesy term that modifies and diminishes ones state.
I imagine you do see those to statements as contradictory. That is not surprising. Unfortunately, and ironically (though I know the irony is wasted here) that is because you are doing exactly what you claim to now do. You are trying to impose your views on me.
What I said is simple. If you have a penis, you are a male. I was a male when I had a penis. That is why i changed my sex (sex NOT gender). I am a female in body now, which matches my brain, which was always female. I realize that dichotomy, that disconnect between brain and body is not something you have experienced, and thus not something you will ever experience. You have chosen, for political and/or social reasons, to rebel against society. That is, I suppose, your right, though I find it rather silly, and I certainly will do nothing to support you in your absurd game.
I am sorry, you are rebellious man who is playing with gender. And no, that is not an insult. It is simply my failure to suffer fools very well. My advice to you is to grow up, before it is too late. They day will come when you will no doubt regret your childish behavior, and will wish you could escape it. The problem is, increasingly, that is harder and harder to do. In a sense, you remind me of the fools I see who have become addicted to tattoos. They think themselves quite rebellious until the time comes to enter the real world. Then they have to spend considerable money, and go through considerable pain, to undo their mistakes. In your case, there is probably not enough money or pain to undo a history of acting the fool.
dear Jennifer,
i had actually stated that you have the right to your own opinion, and that as much as i dislike it and wish you didn't hold it, it's yours and you have a right to that. i am surprised at your statement that i have not experieced gender dysphoria, that i am a man playing with gender. this is not true. i have not "decided" to be transgender.
i have suffered from gender dysphoria most of my life, though i only recently (half a year ago) had the courage to look into the feelings of the wrongness of my own body and my societal role which plagued me.
i don't see why you seem to feel the need to shut down/throw out other people's beliefs and feelings about their identity, using blunt, hurtful, and sometimes triggering words. i did my best to be respectful of you, and in return i recieved a dismissive, invalidating, and from my wn perspective, malicious reply. you don't have to be "open-minded", but please at least try to be open-hearted; even if you don't understand or agree with someone about their own feelings, try to accept that you can't really know how that person feels (since you're not inside their head) and refrain from being hurtful.
Lizzie
What you have to understand is simple, I have lived quite a well, and have seen more than my fair share of kooks. After a while, you notice things, and you figure things out, and you come to conclusions. I am going to save you a lot of time, and wasted effort if you have the good sense to pay attention....I have heard it all before, I have considered the arguments, and you are wasting breath repeating them...." The moment you say "gender queer," I know where you are coming from, and it is not from being a woman. You want to keep your penis, you are clearly a man. If you can't see that, it is not my fault. I mean try thinking about it. And no, suddenly deciding, on a whim, that you will show me, and going hell bent for surgery will prove nothing. You see, I worked in a research project that dealt with a lot of these issues. I have met, and talked with, far more transgender and transsexual people than the average person. I realized there is no such thing as a "transgender community," as imagined by the kooks. There are people with a variety of issues that they want to believe are all in common, but which are often quite different. Now, you go off, and you really come to grips with your issues, and you find, as unlikely as it is, that you really are a transsexual, and you really do want to be "a woman," no qualifications, no modifications, no holding back, then get back to me, and you might change my mind. I have seen it happen once or twice. But most either lie about wanting surgery ("Monica" Helms is a good example) or they think they can keep their penis and claim to be female ("Autumn" Sandeen has taken that route), or they think it is all about "legalities" and "paperwork" (more than I care to mention). No, it is simply about being a woman, not a transgender, not a trannie, not tranny, not even a transsexual. If you can't live without shoving your past in people's faces, if you can't survive without being "out, loud, and proud" then you really have issues that have nothing to do with your gender or your sexuality.
"This, of course, is a classic example of a rather lame straw argument. This person has created an obviously false position, and then tried to attribute it to me."
Where's the falsehood? You claimed she transitioned simply for the fame. Prove it. Her seeking fame after the fact does nothing to help your position, either, you understand? She transitioned and then sought fame as a pageant queen (of both cis and trans pageants): this necessarily demonstrates nothing more than those two facts. Correlation does not imply causation.
"And this is just repeating a truism that, well, is not true. First off, true transsexuals are rare. The vast majority of people who call themselves transsexuals are not. Which raises the question....if there is such a heavy social stigma attached to "transsexual" why is it that every transgender kook wants to either claim to be a surgery tracked transsexual (but never seems to progress forward) or claims to be a non-op transsexual, who claims that being a transsexual does not mean they have to give up that body part that is most precious to them? Seems we have a bit of a problem here. Either you are ignorant of the facts, or you are simply lying."
Prove the rarity. You're making claims and providing nothing but your own opinion to back them up. What is the diagnostic criteria you are applying here? It appears to be different from that found in the DSM for Gender Identity Disorder, and with that found in WPATH's Standards of Card for gender dysphoria. Are you medical professional in this field, that you are able to come up with your own diagnoses based on variant criteria from the rest of the medical community? I'm not sure who these transgender "kooks" you're referring to are, but the vast majority of people I know are progressing toward their stated goal (whatever that maybe), at the pace that their finances and circumstances allow.
I know that I myself am among one of those I referred to who initially preferred "transgender" over "transsexual" because of the latter's stigma. I've reversed my preference, due to the inaccuracies of "transgender", but it's simply that a preference. You are suggesting denying people's womanhood on the basis of them feeling shame over a word. This is a truly ridiculous position to hold.
(cont...)
(...cont)
"Actually, I have never said that TRUE transsexuals who are pre-op (and I mean PRE-OP as in they are actively seeking to have surgery, not someone who says "I am pre=op, and oh, if I win the lottery I will have surgery....maybe...but in the meantime I need a new Miata, and I might buy a house, and I need to upgrade my computer to the latest and greatest, and gee I just don't have the money for surgery..."). What I have said is that being a woman actually means something. It is not something chosen on a whim. It is not a matter of simply saying "I am a woman," but is a state of being that is quite objective. And part of being a woman is not being a man. When someone who is transgender make a public spectacle of their self, they are showing they are not really a woman at all. Being a woman is not about "identity." It is about having a brain that is sexually differentiated in the female directions. It is also about letting go of being a male, period. Something identifying as "transgender" indicates that one is unable to do."
So, if I said to you "I am pre=op, but have not completed the full-time requirement, and intend to pursue surgery as soon as this (very difficult to justify satisfactorily) requirement is fulfilled; however, I am incredibly poor, with next to no income, and do not have insurance that covers SRS, or access to locally available surgical options through the public system that provide at all satisfactory outcome (if they are even available at all in my state, which they're not), and because of this, may not be able to have surgery in the forseeable future, to my great distress": What would you say to me? You gave some example of some apparently wealthy person prioritizing other expenses, but how about my, actual, real life, example, that I'm living right now? Does this make me a man? Will you reduce the value of womanhood to something that can be bought for the right price, and those who can't afford to steep entry fee can be damned?
Again, also, identifying as transgender indicates no inability of any sort. Certainly not letting go of being male. Are you seriously asserting there is such power in words, that identifying as transgender rather than transsexual could have this result. If so, are you really thinking? I could call myself "ciliafractilite" or some such, and still be as capable of this as I am now. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The words are not important. What's important is what one understands them to mean. Your understanding of the wors "transgender" may be very different from another person's, which may be identical to your understanding of "transsexual". Otherwise, you'd have to be saying that only English speaking people are able to be "true transsexuals", as this word doesn't exist in other languages. Which would be quite clearly ridiculous.
Lastly, I'd really like to know your criteria of "acting like a woman" and "acting like a man". So, are you suggesting a butch lesbian cissexual woman who is frequently mistaken for a man, and behaves more or less like one (and don't claim these people don't exist. They do. I've met some), is not really a woman? I sincerely hope not. And if not, what would you say about an equally butch lesbian transsexual woman? Is she a man? On what criteria? Would you truly hold transsexual women's womanhood to different standards than those you hold women who are born female to?
Some actual answers to my questions would be nice this time, instead of more questionable claims. You can find them easily, because each is followed by one of these: "?"
"You are suggesting denying people's womanhood on the basis of them feeling shame over a word."
To clarify, this is obviously not the only reason someone would use "transgender", or even necessarily a very common one. I don't want anyone to think I'm misrepresenting anything here. :D
Give it up. You are trying to take a comment about what the person is currently doing and imply that I am saying this is pary of some master plan. Again, very lame. But rather amusing.
Simply look at the number of people who successfully have surgery and move on with their lives as simply women. That is, they are not doing stupid things to make a public spectacle of their self. Compare that to the number of non-ops and perpetual "pre-ops" who are all about excuses.
And you did not respond to what I asked, and are, I'm fact avoiding it. If transsexual carries such a stigma why do all the kooks now want to claim that title? Oh they still call themselves transgender as well.
No sir, you are not at all clever.
Ah, excuses, excuses... One thing I find interesting is how the faux transsexual always pleads poverty. When I transitioned, I did my name change on a Monday, got my paperwork in order the next day, and was hired the next. And I was hired as a woman at a major department store selling lingerie. In the South. So, cut the crap. If you can't find work, you are failing the Real Life Test and need to reconsider if you are on the right path. (hint: you aren't) and decide if being a full-time cross dresser is worth it.
ROTFL! That ship has already sailed.
OK, you vile subhuman filth. You know nothing about me (or, not enough to make any kind of judgements).
Wow, I envy you the efficiency of the name change procedure where you live. Unfortunately, this takes at least 8 weeks where I live (so, I have another month or so to wait), so your suggestion I get my paperwork in order the next day is rather idiot, and ignorant of the facts of life where I am. Your assumption that I live in your country (by assuming I know, or care, where or what the "South" is... it's a fucking direction, it's meaningless as everything to the south of anywhere is the "south"), or that work is in plentiful supply here, or that transsexual women early in transition are employable everywhere simply because you managed to achieve this in an apparently bigoted area, or that no "true transsexual" could be living in poverty is a nearly mind breaking display of privilege and plain and utter stupidity.
It's fortunate that my therapist, you know, a professional (as opposed to you... a store assistant in a lingerie department, right?), doesn't count my inability to work, which is related to other issues that I am dealing with (I suppose now you're going to tell me that people with disabilities aren't real women), against me as far as RLT goes.
But you, knowing nothing more about me than that I'm poor, unemployed, and in some fashion disabled, as well as what is freely available on the internet, have decided that I am failing the test and that somehow I don't meet the criteria of a "true transsexual" (which you have to to state, or question me on), simply because I disagree with you. The profundity of your arrogance and stupidity is awe inspiring.
So, it seems that you've appointed yourself as the arbiter of who can or cannot be considered a "true transsexual", and hence a real woman. Luckily, the people who listen to your mindless drooling babble number a grand total of 1. Which is probably the number of people who care if you live or die.
My such a nasty little boy, and oh so angry.... As to the name change procedure where I live, it is far more complex than where I had mine done. There it was literally about a 15 minute process. Bring in a notarized form, file it with the court, and leave with a new name. But that is beside the point. Once I had my name changed (something you have not even had done) I moved quickly to start my new life. Now, apparently you are not very knowledgable. The South, as in the Southern United States...not particularly friendly to anyone outside the norm. The sort of place people like you would love, since you could be very "special" and feel extra persecuted. Simply put, I assimilated. I did not feel the need to push my past, or my present in anyone's face. I wanted to be a woman, period, and that is what I quickly became. People who knew me, well they had to know. But beyond that, I pretty much started on a new life.
Oh....disabled. How droll... So many transgender people claim disabilities. That is almost...no, that IS a cliche.
Sir, my dismissing you as just another poser has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. For example, there is a first rate kook name Suzan Cooke, who I tend to disagree with on almost everything (I rarely agree with extremists of any ilk, and Cooke is about as extremist as can be...) but I accept that Cooke is a woman. A deeply disturbed, insecure, troubled woman, but still a woman. So, no, disagreement is NOT the issue.
Now, you have chosen to go with the classic ad hominem approach. Or as I call it, "The weaker the argument, the more insults." You have no real arguments, so....
I do hope your little tantrum has made you feel better. It is simply more confirmation to me that, like most men, you have a very weak ego, and hate being bested. And when you are bested, you turn nasty.
Now, I would point out to you that the only think I am arbiter of, is my opinions. Apparently your "identity" is so weak that my dismissing you as a man has sent you into horrid fits. That does not say much for your "identity" or your womanhood. My, but you grant me such power. True, I don't mince words. As I said earlier, I don't suffer fools well. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. But I claim no authority. Why that would make me like the fool who my writing about began this thread. The kind of fool who says "ALL transsexuals MUST identify as, and accept the label of, transgender. Otherwise they will be called nasty names, and reviled as traitors to the glorious cause." No, I just state an opinion and then I see how people react. The more interesting ones actually try to cause me harm. And they end up tending to regret that.
i normally like reading your posts, but the comments here were a bit rough.
Jenna is a post-op transsexual woman. whatever she may have done in the past, she identifies as post-op TS female now, not transgendered.
mis-gendering her is a bit off. It is not her fault that GLAAD claimed her as TG when during this media event, she resolutely stuck to "i am a woman".
by any standards, she is. so play fair.
Flow, you do raise some good points. I admit, I may have been a bit hasty in some of my remarks, but I do find what she did more than a bit disturbing. I don't know what she wanted to accomplish, but I think she did more harm both to herself, and to transsexuals, than good. First off, she has pretty much permanently sacrificed her claim to actual womanhood. When a transsexual goes public, they are forever marked as "one of those." She will be what I have referred to as a "Woman....but...." That is, people will always say, "Well, I suppose you could call her a woman, but...." Or, "She is a lovely woman...." She has effectively "othered" herself. If she wins, people will say it is political correctness. If she loses, people will say, "What did she expect?"
Elephant in the room: dissociative disorders being the root in a lot of this
It may be involved in case os being TRANSGENDER but not in cases of actual transsexualism. This is a common dodge adopted by the right, but is not supported by evidence.
Post a Comment