Autogynephilia may Actually be Useful for Us

[amielts]

Autogynephilia is a concept usually roundly rejected by transwomen. This is because its inventor, Ray Blanchard, insists that all transwomen are either homosexual or autogynephilic, something clearly not matching our lived experiences.

However, the phenomenon of autogynephilia is real. How else would people like Anne Lawrence and Willow Arune know they have it otherwise?

In fact, acknowledging and upholding the autogynephilic narratives of Lawrence and Arune and other people like them can be helpful. They represent examples of post-op 'transwomen' who are clearly not 'born transwomen' as we understand it. This would shatter the separatist myth that real transwomen always get SRS, and shatter the separatist movement itself.

[LeaP]

Who has ever said that only people who are born trans women get SRS? Some do say that the only true transsexuals are those that get SRS, but that's not the same thing.

I have no reason to doubt that there are people who get SRS for auto-erotic purposes (I'm hesitant to use "autogynephilia" as that loads other meanings). That doesn't invalidate the desire among some "true trans woman" to set themselves apart.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What am I missing? Useful for "us"? Who is "us"?

[amielts]

I have no reason to doubt that there are people who get SRS for auto-erotic purposes (I'm hesitant to use "autogynephilia" as that loads other meanings). That doesn't invalidate the desire among some "true trans woman" to set themselves apart.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What am I missing? Useful for "us"? Who is "us"?

What it invalidates is the use of SRS as the criterion to set people apart, which is damaging 'us', the whole trans community.

I am actually respectful of feminine transwomen who use criteria of early transition and femininity to set themselves apart, for example. It's controversial, but harmless. Using SRS as criterion, however, is dangerously close to anatomical fascism and privileges those with financial means. Transwomen who set themselves apart based on 'femininity' criteria also don't threaten any future legal inclusion of any category of trans persons, whilst those using SRS as criterion clearly do. You cannot insist that birth certificates cannot be altered past the age of 25, for example, or that people who play football can't change their birth certificate. But the law can, and already does, use SRS as a criterion to exclude trans people, something that must change.

[Nicole Erin]

Gyod, when are people going to learn to live as they need to instead of worrying about what "qualifications" they need to meet or what political garbage they should worry about?

[Julia_in_Pa]

I'm intersexed and have nothing in common with the Transgender community.
I do have many things in common with the Transsexual community.

I resent sexual fetishists and men who dress as a hobby attempting to gain legitimacy on the backs of the TS and IS communities.
Does the fetishists drive to dress, masterbate then discard clothing of the opposite sex give them any legitimate reason for any sort of legal protections whatsoever?
Does the male that enjoys dressing as a hobby have remotely the same needs legally and socially as a transitioned intersexed or transsexual woman?

I don't have SRS and wont have the surgery.
I do however have biological variance that from a medical standpoint makes me 50 % genetic female.
Because of this I have medical needs that are different than anyone that identifies as a member of the Transgender community.

I share a common bond of transition with those TS women that have done so.
I also share a bond with those that identify as transsexual that are in various stages of transition.

My biology trumps any post op XY chromosomed trans woman on the grounds that I am by definition physically part female.
Does it make me any more female in soul, brain or spirit? No it does not.

Do I agree with the separatist movement? Yes and no.

I do not agree that in order to be a " true " transsexual or " woman " that you need SRS. The majority of transitioned TS and IS people have not had SRS.
I do however agree that post op and transitioned non-op TS and IS people have little to anything in common with CD's, pansexuals and fetishists and because of that there is absolutely no reason to include transitioned people within the Transgender community.

Intersexed people don't need political assistance concerning lobbying for rights. Intersexed people do not need a large public closet to exist in.
What we do need is a good endocrinologist and to be left alone by those that attempt to include us in something that has absolutely nothing in common with the Intersexed individual.



Julia

[LeaP]

What it invalidates is the use of SRS as the criterion to set people apart, which is damaging 'us', the whole trans community.

I am actually respectful of feminine transwomen who use criteria of early transition and femininity to set themselves apart, for example. It's controversial, but harmless. Using SRS as criterion, however, is dangerously close to anatomical fascism and privileges those with financial means. Transwomen who set themselves apart based on 'femininity' criteria also don't threaten any future legal inclusion of any category of trans persons, whilst those using SRS as criterion clearly do. You cannot insist that birth certificates cannot be altered past the age of 25, for example, or that people who play football can't change their birth certificate. But the law can, and already does, use SRS as a criterion to exclude trans people, something that must change.

Your conclusion still doesn't follow from your explanation. The fact that there are a variety of motives for SRS doesn't "invalidate" the desire for one group among them to pursue separatism.

You're making a political plea based on what you see as a weakening of the SRS argument - that because SRS isn't the exclusive province of the "true trans" person that the argument itself is undercut. That's like arguing with someone who has a strong marriage that the because some get divorced their marriage is of lesser value.

Getting away from logic, I don't have strong opinions on the merits of your basic political position. I don't think terminology like "anatomical fascism" is helpful. The financial privilege point is stronger, but can also be approached by different means (e.g., by having SRS covered under insurance and national health plans).

In any event, you aren't really talking about what constitutes trans so much as what should be permissible for legal male/female markers. There is a discussion to be had on the social utility of the markers. I might be in favor of removing gender markers entirely from identifying documents, which simply removes things from government control, but would want to hear debate on the implications first. I'm less enchanted with the idea of muddling the existing markers.

My thinking on the so-called trans community is closer to Julia's. Which is that when you stretch inclusion to the point of joining people who don't really want to be together, there is no community per se. There might be a political advantage, but that can be accomplished, issue-by-issue as needed, by coalition politics, too.

You brought up financial privileging. The history of queer politics is such that inclusion of trans people resulted in the privileging of cissexuality and decades-long delays in getting trans issues addressed at all. The transgender movement has resulted in the privileging of queer identities over the binary-based identities of most transsexuals, who then get criticized for perpetuating sexism.

I don't see a broad group as capable of representing the interests of transsexuals and intersexuals. And certainly nothing akin to a "community."

[Kathryn Martin]

Autogynephilia is a hypothesis by Ray Blanchard which has not even matured into a theory. It was invented by Blanchard in 1989 based on a sample size of 362 samples. The questionaire used was multiple choice and was designed around an arousal scale without permitting test subjects to answer without referring to the arousal scale. The findings indicate that many of the test subjects declined to accept the arousal concept and subsequently those that stated that they felt no arousal about the fact that they were wishing to have a sex other than what they were born with. The conclusion states in the barest sense that anyone who too this view was lying.

The hypothesis is quack science, unreliable and the exposition of a "most beloved idea" by Blanchard. (I did read the 1989 paper in some detail and looked at the questionnaire)

The issue with amielts post is this:

-it is time that the difference between gender variant and transsexual persons be properly defined and supported by research, they are different conditions;

-it is time to stop making value judgements about one or the other condition but also stop conflating one with the other;

-it is time to recognize that autogynephilia and it's hypothesis is not science at all. In no other field would this kind of research be permitted to stand, it is flawed and not scientifically supported.

[ZosKiaCultusC7]

This would shatter the separatist myth that real transwomen always get SRS, and shatter the separatist movement itself.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse (yes I do) but this logic is flawed:

I'm not solely defending myself here because I have not decided yay or nay in regard to SRS. However, there are those who have the inability to get SRS due to financial reasons and/or health reasons, not because they don't want to. I'm not agreeing that any TG/TS who decides not to get SRS isn't a "true transwoman" because I don't agree with this claim; I simply wanted to give an alternate perspective of how this statement is fallacious. I may never get SRS because surgery that major scares the shit out of me. This doesn't make me any less of a woman.

Edit: Grrrr....sorry, I assumed that you were backing up this myth. Maybe I shouldn't read/post when I'm in a meeting. I'll still leave my $0.02 though.

[KellyJameson]

The concept of Autogynephilia caused me alot of consternation adding to my confusion of the what and why of me.

When crossdressed I would have the same feeling of movement (attraction) toward myself as I do toward other woman with the same paradoxical relationship I have with women where I want them but not from the "urge to merge" but the "urge to become" On a conscious level I assumed it was sexual because it is the only experience I know and had nothing to compare it to, my whole life I have labelled my urge to become a woman as lust for a woman.

It was only when I took a scapel and dissected my subconscious motives that I uncovered my paradoxical and contradictory behavior and the truth that was hidden behind it.

This was incredibly difficult for me to do because I relentlessly questioned myself fearing that I wanted to label myself with GID to escape the guilt of autogynephilia so became trapped between conflicting wants.

I first had to work through my disgust that I may be crossdressing for sexual purposes and accept the label of autogynephilia even though it did not "feel" true for me before I could than move beyond autogynephilia.

In a sense autogynephilia has been useful to me in helping me understand what I am and what I am not. I'm perfectly fine with others who use crossdressing for sexual reasons, I have a touch of envy mixed with a touch of contempt for them though.

The envy is because they are free from the deeper torments of GID and the contempt is because I experience it as an affront to who I am and this is experienced as autogynephilia being an insult to woman much like how I react to pornography. I am repelled by that which reduces woman to sexual objects because I experience it as if it is being done to me.

In my opinion when your brain in not masculinized you become sensitive not on a conscious level with it's rules of conduct but on a feeling level (subconscious) to many of the same affronts to ones value as a human being that a woman experiences, in a way it makes me feel as if I am a misandrist that hates men but because I am one it than is felt like self hate and self rejection.

This is why GID for me feels like a form of insanity because your mind rejects itself. When I realized that my protecting the image of women was actually protecting myself I began to see the deeper truths.

[Aprilrain]

I think I'm a little autogynaphilic (is that a word??) or maybe im just like a lot of other mid twenties to late 30s woman I know and enjoy being sexy for my SO. I'm Bi but more into guys at the moment which by definition would preclude me from "having" Autogynaphilia which postulates that TS GMs who are "hetero" (into woman) are really autogynaphillic.
I don't have a problem with the word its self but rather the cissexist assumptions behind the hypothesis. 1 that we are really males, 2 that TS woman who are into men are really gay men, and that TS woman who are into woman are really hetero men. the whole thing smacks of cissexism!

[Bree-asaurus]

Yeah... wasn't the crackpot theory of autogynephilia thought up by some guy who thinks that there are no such thing as transexuals? That they are simply men who are sexually attracted to themselves pretending to be women?

How is such an insane term useful to anyone except those trying to discredit a transexuals need to be themselves?


I think I'm a little autogynaphilic (is that a word??) or maybe im just like a lot of other mid twenties to late 30s woman I know and enjoy being sexy for my SO. I'm Bi but more into guys at the moment which by definition would preclude me from "having" Autogynaphilia which postulates that TS GMs who are "hetero" (into woman) are really autogynaphillic.
I don't have a problem with the word its self but rather the cissexist assumptions behind the hypothesis. 1 that we are really males, 2 that TS woman who are into men are really gay men, and that TS woman who are into woman are really hetero men. the whole thing smacks of cissexism!

Yup... both men and women can feel sexy when they sex themselves up for a fun, frisky time with their SO. It's a self-esteem booster and it makes you feel good when you can get all prettied (or handsomed) up and know that you're going to turn on your partner. 'Autogynephilia' has nothing to do with this feeling.


However, the phenomenon of autogynephilia is real. How else would people like Anne Lawrence and Willow Arune know they have it otherwise?

Misguided beliefs or understanding.

I KNOW the flying spaghetti monster exists. Therefor he does. *sigh*

[Julia_in_Pa]

I get turned on by blood and needles that doesn't mean I'm a heroin addict.


Julia

[LeaP]

In my opinion when your brain in not masculinized you become sensitive not on a conscious level with it's rules of conduct but on a feeling level (subconscious) to many of the same affronts to ones value as a human being that a woman experiences, in a way it makes me feel as if I am a misandrist that hates men but because I am one it than is felt like self hate and self rejection.

This is why GID for me feels like a form of insanity because your mind rejects itself. When I realized that my protecting the image of women was actually protecting myself I began to see the deeper truths.

Well put, Kelly. Many have expressed the feeling of craziness attendant to GID, including me, but this is the first I've seen it put in these terms and concepts.

Lea

[ReineD]

I think I'm a little autogynaphilic (is that a word??) or maybe im just like a lot of other mid twenties to late 30s woman I know and enjoy being sexy for my SO.

April, if you enjoy being sexy for your SO and you are into your SO then you are not AGP.

AGP is defined, "the love of oneself as a woman" which means the very source of sexual gratification is as oneself as a woman (whether engaged in this solo, or with a partner and using them as an accessory) more than the sexual enjoyment of a partner.


To Amielts:

I'm making a mental note to read what Lawrence and Arune have to say about this.

I also disagree with Blanchard's theory of AGP as a basis for transition for TSs who suffer from GID. But the concept of AGP is valid in my opinion. There are many crossdressers, judging by the posts in this very forum, who do confirm they source their sexual arousal from the thought of themselves as women. And I've no doubt some of these CDers become so involved in the fantasy as to seek transition or at least play around with the idea. In fact, there was a video posted about such a person recently who did have SRS and then decided to revert to guy mode some 5-7 years later.

However, having a history of sexual arousal related to the CDing is commonplace among GMs who because of their socialization did not give themselves permission for many years to express their femininity in non sexual ways. And this forum is filled with accounts from CDers/TGs/DGs/BGs/Gender Variants (however you might define them), who say the sexual urges diminish or disappear as they reach a level of self-acceptance of their gender variance. Even some late onset TSs started out believing they were CDers and I dare say in their early years, they also were not exempt from being aroused while they were dressed.

Your argument seems to stem from the premise that the TS community looks down upon individuals who come to the conclusion they do not fit into the traditional definition of CDer, yet who do have a history of sexual arousal while dressed? Let me ask you ... are you wanting to not be judged as a fetish crossdresser by some of the transsexuals you've come across? In other words, do you consider yourself a TS who has no wish for transition (or no financial resources to do so) and you are frustrated by some members of the MtF TS community who seem to have a very narrow view there are either CDers (men) or TSs (women) in this world and nothing else?

The notion that anyone who is not a "true TS" seeking SRS is either a fetish CDer, or a whiner, coward, or in denial, is false. There are people who do fall in the non-binary gender spectrum and I'm coming to the conclusion this is a difficult concept to comprehend, judging by the dualgenders who also can only see two choices for self-definition: either the traditional definition of CDers, or TSs. I would pay close attention to Kathryn's post (sorry Kathryn for repeatedly pointing others to your words, but you do have an ability for objective analysis):



The issue with amielts post is this:

-it is time that the difference between gender variant and transsexual persons be properly defined and supported by research, they are different conditions ;

-it is time to stop making value judgements about one or the other condition but also stop conflating one with the other;

-it is time to recognize that autogynephilia and it's hypothesis is not science at all. In no other field would this kind of research be permitted to stand, it is flawed and not scientifically supported.

The underlines in Kathryn's quote are my emphasis.

[melissaK]

This thread bothers me.

1) Nobody knows why we are TG. IMHO we do ourselves a disfavor by elevating our theories, or Blanchards theories, to any higher level than a theory. Making classifications on bad science is how 1890's white Colonialists used "evolutionary theories" to justify ruling India, the Phillipines, Hawaii etc. (Phillipinos were displayed like zoo creatures at the 1904 St. Louis Exhibition as an unevolved race who we were helping evolve so they could take care of themselves). It's how Hitler justified his master race in the 1930's.

2) TGerism has symptoms, and the symptoms can be alleviated through certain treatments. Ranking us by the treatment we obtainwith ether it be CDing, HRT, or SRS, or top surgery but not bottom, or any other criteria, is arbitrary. Money, health co-morbidities, genetic variants, social roles or social responsibilities are all ignored. Making arbitrary decisions on actions we take is more bad science.

Hugs
'lissa.

[amielts]

Let me ask you ... are you wanting to not be judged as a fetish crossdresser by some of the transsexuals you've come across? In other words, do you consider yourself a TS who has no wish for transition (or no financial resources to do so) and you are frustrated by some members of the MtF TS community who seem to have a very narrow view there are either CDers (men) or TSs (women) in this world and nothing else?

The notion that anyone who is not a "true TS" seeking SRS is either a fetish CDer, or a whiner, coward, or in denial, is false. There are people who do fall in the non-binary gender spectrum and I'm coming to the conclusion this is a difficult concept to comprehend, judging by the dualgenders who also can only see two choices for self-definition: either the traditional definition of CDers, or TSs. I would pay close attention to Kathryn's post (sorry Kathryn for repeatedly pointing others to your words, but you do have an ability for objective analysis):


I am actually a full time, transitioned TS. But amongst the TS community, there are now separatists who wish to claim that "anyone who is not a "true TS" seeking SRS is either a fetish CDer, or a whiner, coward, or in denial". I have even seen some on this board.

This fringe movement will damage the future of our community. They must be discredited by any means possible. I have come up with ideas as to how to discredit them forever. Just read my website to find out more if you are interested.

I don't have a problem with the view that we all have different needs. But these separatists are insisting that they are the only ones who need and deserve all medical services and legal rights, whilst even perpetually pre-op or non-op TS, let alone other TGs, shouldn't get any rights at all. I have been in the trans community for 12 years and I haven't seen an ideological battle as important as this one. If you people see this danger the way I have come to see it too, you would gladly join the fight too.


TGerism has symptoms, and the symptoms can be alleviated through certain treatments. Ranking us by the treatment we obtainwith ether it be CDing, HRT, or SRS, or top surgery but not bottom, or any other criteria, is arbitrary. Money, health co-morbidities, genetic variants, social roles or social responsibilities are all ignored. Making arbitrary decisions on actions we take is more bad science.


Yet certain TS separatists seek to use SRS as the criterion to separate themselves and secure legal recognition and medical benefits for themselves only, at the expense of all other TGs, including even full-time pre-op and non-op TS. This is why they must be defeated.

My idea was to use AGP theory to fight separatists. Separatists have been around far too long, and so far nobody has done enough to discredit them. It is time for the SRS-based separatist movement to come to a humiliating end (to make sure it can never come back again), and I believe AGP theory can help achieve this.

[ReineD]

I am actually a full time, transitioned TS. But amongst the TS community, there are now separatists who wish to claim that "anyone who is not a "true TS" seeking SRS is either a fetish CDer, or a whiner, coward, or in denial". I have even seen some on this board.

You should pay close attention to the words in their posts, and if anyone repeatedly makes insinuations that you do not like, put them on "Ignore". You won't see their posts that way. The button is located just under everyone's avatars in our profiles.

That said, take care not to allow the attitudes of the few to color what you read from the rest. We do have many members who don't insinuate such things.

As moderators, we do our best to keep the peace in the forum, and members who continually paint others with a broad brush (for example saying outright that anyone who does not seek SRS is in denial, or a coward, or a fetish CDer, etc.) are dealt with.

I'd also like to give you a fair and friendly warning: if you begin to paint everyone who is in favor of SRS as "separatists", your posts will be moderated too. We strive to keep a friendly forum here for everyone's benefit, we have a pretty good nose for the type of posts that will create flame wars, and we prefer the more divisive opinions to be communicated privately between members via PM.

So, Amielts, do try to read other member's posts carefully and if you become offended, do confirm with them via PM if they said what you thought they said before you respond. Also please try to keep your own posts objective. If you want to call someone a "TS Separatist", you'll need to do that privately.

[amielts]

As moderators, we do our best to keep the peace in the forum, and members who continually paint others with a broad brush (for example saying outright that anyone who does not seek SRS is in denial, or a coward, or a fetish CDer, etc.) are dealt with.
I have seen things like these on the forum. How come they weren't dealt with:

Link: http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?172943-Having-Male-Parts-No-Longer-Blocks-Being-a-Woman-Legally-in-Ontario-Canada

You know Sandra I was very specific and clear and you took your own spin on what I said so I will re clarify what I was talking about. I was talking about a birth certificate. I was NOT talking about any other paperwork. I was not talking about drivers license or ss or any other thing. JUST birth certificate.

And yes I do think its a stretch and if I was a ligislator I would NEVER vote to allow a person with testicles to get a female on his birth certificate.

I hate to say this but damm if that was the case then what the hell is a male and a female. Should there be no sex designation? Im sorry but its just too much. Another point of view is that I and girls that no longer have testicles have EARNED the female designation. It seems silly that someone that has not earned it should get it. Anything worth a crap in life is hard and for someone to have the easy route they simple dont earn it. Its a slap across a post op womans face as well as the general population to visualize males getting a female designation on thier birth certificate. YA got testicles your male simple as that.


Oh well I will just sit here and shake my head and know that its not likely that this legislation will become law and for a god damm good reason I might add.

Katie

PS For those that claim they cannot afford SRS or are afraid of surgery or have health reasons there is always an orchie. Last time I checked they arent very expensive and are a very minor surgery. I am no expert on orchies since I think they are a cop out but hell at least theres no testicles and that would be acceptable in my book for a birth certificate change. Only problem is you still walk around with a penis between your legs. Yuck. Ya wont be able to convince many people your female when ya got that between your legs. Well you can convince Melody because shes all for the gender in your head thing.

Wouldn't this be broadly offensive to all pre-op TS, non-op TS, and many other TG sub-groups?


I'd also like to give you a fair and friendly warning: if you begin to paint everyone who is in favor of SRS as "separatists", your posts will be moderated too.
I am not going to do this obviously. Having SRS is a valid choice, unless it is forced upon others.

[Kathryn Martin]

amielts,

the quote from Kate is one persons opinion. Likewise my comment, which is pretty much confined to my take on the decision. I know that you prefer to categorize me as a separatists but just saying it never makes it so. The issues discussed in that thread are very serious issues that can have very long term implications for everyone who is transsexual or gender variant that we might not like, if done by someone who has no knowledge of what it means to be either, politicians and the like.

Clearly, being a woman with a TS history, you have much to offer to all of us. It seems however that you need to focus on "uncovering" a separatist agenda. With the exception of a few loudmouthed louts on the net such as "Elizabeth" from "Notes from the T side" and "Alia Blue", Anne from "Ella es Asi" and their cohorts there are few that really are separatist in the truest sense of the word. Being absolute about a matter is always the wrong response, because it puts blinders up that make us lose half or more of our field of vision. I look forward to knowing more of you and your journey and your experiences.

Kathryn

[LeaP]

...separatists ... fringe movement ... discredited by any means possible...discredit them forever ... separatists are insisting - other TGs, shouldn't get any rights at all ...ideological battle ... the fight too ... medical benefits for themselves only, at the expense of all other TGs ... they must be defeated ... time for the SRS-based separatist movement to come to a humiliating end

And in other posts: "the trans community is full of deception", "transsexual separatists were once privileged white males", "You are yourself quite scared of the bigoted public", "shatter the separatist movement", "their nonsense", and of course, "anatomical fascism".

And you think "separatists" (an invention in itself) are polarizing?

There are a lot of thoughtful, intelligent people here who are perfectly willing to entertain a discussion on its merits. If you want a hearing, I would gently suggest dropping the inflammatory language in favor of presenting logical support for your conclusions. A priori appeals coupled with arguable facts and circumstances aren't making the case for me.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

It is a fundamental mistake to confuse the consequence of your choice and the freedom to choose..

[arbon]

This fringe movement will damage the future of our community. They must be discredited by any means possible. I have come up with ideas as to how to discredit them forever. Just read my website to find out more if you are interested.

Why all the energy into this? What are they doing specifically that makes you afraid that you need to focus so much on this? It kind of sounds like we are in some big political battle or needing to overthrow a government or something. People are entitled to their opinions, if some want to distance themselves from the TG community and speak loudly about why they need to it then fine, I don't care either way. They can have at it and people like you can have at going after them, and they can come back after you drama!!! Have fun. The TG, TS communities are so broad and diverse that a handful of radicals on either end wont have any sway or somehow unify the communities in either way.

[ReineD]

Amielts, as ornery as Kate can get, she is still allowed her opinion. You mistakenly give her more power than she is due by believing that her words have the ability to sway people. We have plenty of members here who disagree with Kate and who take her to task on a regular basis. She does not, by herself, a "separatist movement" make. I'm not saying there aren't people like Kate out there spouting off their beliefs, but they're not here banding together.

To come into this forum with a political agenda, such as "fighting" these "separatists" is completely against the spirit of this forum, which is to provide a safe place for support and calm discussion.

Kate on occasion and admittedly in the post you quote has gone overboard with her rude comments and single mindedness. Sometimes there is a gray area in between personal opinion and ornery attack. The best way to have dealt with that post would have been to click on the triangular button below Kate's avatar, and report it. Kate's comments would then have been more closely examined by the mods, who don't necessarily read every single word of every post in every thread.

However, if you do not wish to report Kate's posts yet you object to the things that she says, you can isolate them and respond to them politely like this:



if I was a ligislator I would NEVER vote to allow a person with testicles to get a female on his birth certificate.

TSs who are living full time and who cannot have surgery or who are waiting to have surgery should be thankful that you are not a legislator. Your views are decidedly one sided.



Another point of view is that I and girls that no longer have testicles have EARNED the female designation

As have the pre-op transwomen who live full time and have relegated every single part of their male persona to the garbage bin.



YA got testicles your male simple as that.

If the world was a black and white as you make it out to be, evolution would not have happened and none of us would be there. You would do yourself and the TS community a huge favor by expanding your horizons.


Bottom line, Amielts, words like this are NOT allowed here:



My idea was to use AGP theory to fight separatists. Separatists have been around far too long, and so far nobody has done enough to discredit them. It is time for the SRS-based separatist movement to come to a humiliating end (to make sure it can never come back again), and I believe AGP theory can help achieve this.

You can "fight" them on your blog, on their blogs, and everywhere else on the net, but NOT HERE. You can, however, address certain members' individual opinions when they come up, such as I've demonstrated above, without flaming anyone.

Thread closed.