SRS Seperatism, Reparative therapy, and the general state of the Trans-Community

[MC-lite]

Hi All,
Recently, I noticed a sub-thread emerge inside a thread posted by another member. It seemed to have momemtum attached to it, so I thought I'd give it it's own "home" so to speak.

It seems to me that the Trans community has fragmented. Or perhaps it has always been fragmented. There are cross-dressers, trans folk, Intersexed people, non-ops, gender-queer, M2F,F2M. Some want surgery, some don't.

This is very confusing to the uninitiated. So, maybe the more seasoned (and wiser) transitioners should give us "newbies" an education, so to speak.

My take on things: You should do whatever it takes to be happy. Please don't hurt others, and please don't hurt yourself. But be happy.

I know what will make me happy. But I also know that there's always a price tag attached to anything that makes you happy. I want SRS. Because of my physiology I spent my life living alone and in between genders. I'd like to spend the rest of my life living as close to my prefered gender as possible.

But that's me. I don't even presume to know how you feel. I can only empathize.

I mentioned Reparative therapy just so I could point out that it went the way of the Dodo and Gay camp. It was bad science that was more damaging than helpful.

Eventually, SRS seperatism will take that same path.

Any thoughts?

Please share them here.

:Miki

[Melody Moore]

Eventually, SRS seperatism will take that same path.

"SRS Seperatism"? now that is a new term I have never seen before. If you are referring to
those with GID who have fought so long and hard for the very little help they do get? "you wish".

Just because you feel so disheartened that you cannot get SRS there is no reason to take
out your personal frustrations on the hopes & dreams of others that do. Meanwhile none
of these people are standing in your way to live your life the way you want. So move on
because you really are flogging a dead horse here.

[MC-lite]

@Melody: Im assuming that you mean "You" metaphorically, and not "You" as in Me. Because I made my feelings clear in my post. :)

Yes, we get very little care and very little respect, especially from the medical community at large. I liken it to the way that Natal females were (and are) treated by the medical community. For many years, -anything- that had to do with feminine reproductive health was shunned, and women were made to feel ashamed of being ill, often to the point where they would allow themselves to die before seeking care. (My aunt was one of those women; she died of uterine cancer)

[Katesback]

Sweety I think there is no separatism. I think there is a difinitive difference between someone who says they are a crossdresser, someone who says they are a TS but what to keep thier penis, and finally someone who says they are TS and wants to get rid of the penis. Because of these differences there are people that draw an incorect conclusion that one group might see themselves as better than the other.

Take for example this statment that I have said in the past that has enflamed a lot of people. I said that someone that claims to be TS but wants to keep thier penis is NOT TS. Trans something sure but not TS. Would you believe people said I was being a separatist and elietist? Crap I really dont care what someone says they are but they arent TS if they want to keep thier penis. This does not make me better than anyone.

Katie

[ReineD]

I had never heard of the "separatists" vs. "inclusionists" debate, otherwise known as the "tranny wars", until just a few days ago while looking into Amielts's comments and googling a few things. So now there is a name for the various disagreements, some of them contentious, in this section over the years.

This is what I gather so far, and I'd like to share it by way of an objective introduction, as objective as I can be, even though some of you are already fully familiar with the debate:

The trans "separatist" vs. "inclusionist" debate stems from a growing awareness of all the different ways there are to NOT be heterosexual cisgender (having a birth sex that agrees with gender identity and further is attracted to the opposite sex), which is also known as being "heteronormative".

Speaking strictly of the MtFs (I don't know if there are F2M separatists): the MtF "separatists" believe they are normal women who happened to have been born with the birth defect of having male chromosomes, and therefore they do not belong to any "trans" grouping of people, specifically the "T" in LGBTQ, which they say is more appropriate for crossdressers, drag queens, and the transgenders who do not see themselves fully as women yet or ever. The separatists further believe their medical needs and legal rights are different and separate from the needs of others who identify "trans", since in order to function optimally in society, the separatists (or "true TSs") need to be stealth, free of any association from trans groups, and in order to do this they need to transition without being subjected to any legal or social penalties for doing so. They want to be considered as the women they are and nothing else. They also believe that true women don't have penises. This is the crux of the matter.

The "T" people (the inclusionists): crossdressers, drag queens, the transgenders who do not see themselves as crossdressers, but mostly the people who currently identify as TS but who have no wish for, or have no ability to either have SRS or live full-time or both for a variety of medical, financial, and social reasons, believe the "separatists" cannot hide from their chromosomal realities, they are fighting for medical and legal rights for themselves only at the expense of others, they are dismissing the notion that gender identity exists separate from anatomical makeup, and this will weaken the entire "trans" community.

I think that's pretty well it, in a nutshell. :p

This is a complex issue that involves gender identity, medical health, financial need, inevitable time lags between one point of self-awareness and another, but mostly I suspect differing key basic definitions as to what constitutes gender, and may also involve sexual preference, that we may discuss here from ideological, philosophical, medical, legal, political, and ethical standpoints. But, because of the contentious and complex nature of this yet unresolved issue (which is in part unresolved because of the dire lack of scientific research in the field), I honestly don't see how we can discuss this and all remain polite and civilized. But, we can try.

I'm pleading with people here to state their opinions politely without flaming, without taking what anyone else has to say personally, and we'll see how this goes. If it becomes a bitch-fest (for lack of a better word) like many other similar threads in the past, I'll have to close it down.

So please behave and approach this thread with your best face forward, free of flaming and broad-brushing. It only takes one or two to spoil it for everyone else.

[LeaP]

"Trans" is a relativism.

From a physical point of view, being trans(whatever) and a woman are not mutually-exclusive. And from this standpoint, I find the objection nonsensical.

From the political and social points of view, I completely understand the objections to inclusion.

Lea

[Badtranny]

So please behave and approach this thread with your best face forward, free of flaming and broad-brushing. It only takes one or two to spoil it for everyone else.

Jeez RD, how am I supposed to work within those parameters?!

The funny thing about the "separatist" movement is that we all think a line needs to be drawn, but we all have a different place for the line. Kate and people like her want the line at SRS, people like me want the line at transition, and people who are really inclusive want the line at any form of TG expression. I don't think anybody wants the line at fetishism but that would just be silly.

I'm of the mind that the Post-Op crowd shouldn't really be in this fight because they are physically female with no further chance of being "caught". Just another woman as far as I'm concerned and aside from some residual healthcare prejudice their political bell is now just good old fashioned feminism. I think the real political battles are with the transitioners and even though there are wonderful progressive states like California, there are more regressive states like most of the flyovers. A cross dresser is essentially safe because they can just disappear into "male mode" whenever it suits them. A transitioner is out on a limb. My name change will take at least 12 more weeks but in the meantime there is no hiding these breasts, or my face for that matter. When the poo goes down, I don't have any escape from who I am. It's people like me who need protection.

[MC-lite]

Sweety I think there is no separatism. I think there is a difinitive difference between someone who says they are a crossdresser, someone who says they are a TS but what to keep thier penis, and finally someone who says they are TS and wants to get rid of the penis. Because of these differences there are people that draw an incorect conclusion that one group might see themselves as better than the other.

That makes sense to me. Better? no. Requiring different types of care? Yes.
I think it's important that we are not all lumped together, and one narrow standard defines a care strategy for us that does not serve all parties involved.

i.e. Telling someone that is intersexed and who does not wish it that they -must- get surgery in order to get HRT, if needed, and vice-versa.


Take for example this statment that I have said in the past that has enflamed a lot of people. I said that someone that claims to be TS but wants to keep thier penis is NOT TS. Trans something sure but not TS.


Your statement sounds like a scientific hypothesis to me. :) Something that may very well be proven at a later time by data collected from legitimate experiment and research.

To Me, the term "Trans" Seems to be an all-encompassing umbrella to collect those whose gender variance does not fit into the Gay / Lesbian camp.

It only stands to reason that we will seperate into specific camps, as the terminology is discovered.

"Physics is the only true science...everything else is just stamp collecting"

:Miki.

[MC-lite]

@Badtranny: I agree. Protection -and- care without ridicule. We reach a vulnerable point during HRT where our projected gender facade is ambiguous. Some people react adversely to it.

@LeaP: I agree with your post. Because it comes down to money, and where it's best spent.

@ReineD: Thank you for the explanation. :)

[arbon]

.

I'm of the mind that the Post-Op crowd shouldn't really be in this fight because they are physically female with no further chance of being "caught". .

Unless they still look like a man, or like a woman if they are FTM, then they are still very much in the fight. People are judging by what you look like outside, they are not inspecting what's down bellow. I have one friend that is FTM that does not pass well and i know he gets a lot of hell for it. Despite surgery, name change and gender marker change its still a huge struggle for him day to day.

[RachelOKC]

Small wonder that a lot of the GLB community shrugs and say "WTF?" when they look at the T-"Community". It gets really hard to expect them to be on board with us when we're hardly on board with each other, yeah?

I'm all for broad protections and broad terminology under the law since I could certainly some myself now that I'm starting to personally learn what it's like to be a second class citizen. I also think people have the right to self-determination in their gender identity and nobody needs to label anybody else. For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would get so worked up about what someone else labels themselves as and what is the "correct" label to apply.

If some separatist bunch wants to appoint themselves Overlords and Chief Arbiters of Official Terms and Concepts of Trannydom then by all rights let them. Hell, I'd even love to see them have a float in the Pride Parade. Except they don't speak for me and they don't speak for the next guy or the next girl...they speak for themselves and their miniscule number of followers. Let 'em try changing laws, DSM, policies, etc...good luck with that!

[Anna Lorree]

Sweety I think there is no separatism. I think there is a difinitive difference between someone who says they are a crossdresser, someone who says they are a TS but what to keep thier penis, and finally someone who says they are TS and wants to get rid of the penis. Because of these differences there are people that draw an incorect conclusion that one group might see themselves as better than the other.

Take for example this statment that I have said in the past that has enflamed a lot of people. I said that someone that claims to be TS but wants to keep thier penis is NOT TS. Trans something sure but not TS. Would you believe people said I was being a separatist and elietist? Crap I really dont care what someone says they are but they arent TS if they want to keep thier penis. This does not make me better than anyone.

Katie

Jeez, I don't want to agree with you Kate, but in a way I kind of have to. A couple of years ago when I finally accepted that I was Trans something, I tried to figure out what all of these labels and sub groups meant. I've come down on the side of there being CD's (fetish and not, doesn't much matter why they do it to me), Transgenderists (I know, old term, but I still use it to describe people who are kind of in the middle; more on the femme side of the spectrum than a CD, but not fully transitioned), and the TS community. To me, TS seems like somebody who is so upset at having their gender not match their sex that they change the only aspect of self that they can, their sex. It's almost like Transgenderist is a noun and Transsexual is a verb. I think this definition might be why I have had a hard time identifying as a TS, I view that as requiring at least movement into transition.

As for the discussion in general, I view it as a problem with language. English simply doesn't have the words to deal with all of this, at least not yet. What words we do have aren't yet well defined or understood. Also, biological and psychological science hasn't caught up with the human condition we suffer. As such, we are left arguing over definitions (like where the TS line is), and it sounds like Clinton trying to define what "it" is. I guess to simplify things we should all use the definitions the pros use with regard to the Trans words. I don't like it because there seems to be a big unlabeled gray area between CD and TS, which is where a lot of people seem to belong. Right now we vaguely call them "mid-pathers", and they have no real "group" of their own.

Personally, if I were to transition and look like some of the transwomen here (like Inna or Bree for instance), I would be very tempted to go deep stealth as well. Why deal with all the crappy politics? Why not just go be happy? I can't blame them, honestly I envy them. We all just want to fit in somewhere, which is part of why we have these little trans-tribes forming. It's human nature.

Anna

[KellyJameson]

Hi Miki

My thoughts are usually out of left field but wanted to share hoping you may find some value in my words.

I have always observed intense conflict among people who have conflict between their identity, behavior and biology and in looking toward others for resolution of this conflict by making comparisons in the attempt to legitimize their existence they trigger the existential guilt that they carry because of these very differences, I have spent my life doing this.

GID creates existential guilt which creates and reinforces anxiety so that you live life as if your very existence is under attack much like if every moment of life someone is pointing a gun at you or holding a knive at your throat, it is a form of living paranoia that waxes and wanes but never stops depending on circumstance.

This intense anxiety is experienced as physical stress and takes a toll on the body and the person looking for relief often self medicates further adding to their guilt. It often impairs social relations leaving the person feeling inferior, unwanted,unlovable and broken, you experience and react to life as if you suffer from PTSD and in some sense you do.

One aspect of childhood is resolving the existential need for identity, GID prevents that and this very important step is not resolved so you become stuck in time and fear becomes your shadow.

Identity is the difference between life and death when you live life this way so others definition of identity (what is a man or woman/ feminine-masculine) than feels like a threat to your very life, to your very existence and the words of others become bullets sent to pierce your body and soul, you experience life as if you are always under attack because you are. for what others see and reflect back to you is not who you are.

Every act takes on excruciating importance and meaning is frantically searched for in symbolic representations of womanhood as if we are floating in an ocean clinging to a small life raft and will be pulled down into the void if we do not find and become perfection.

If these words are the truth for others can you imagine the extreme pain relationships with others who you think are like you but are not can cause ? Everyone searches for weapons to beat others into submission to make room for their very existence.

It has many of the same behaviors as religious wars because they share similar reasons.

I wanted to give you the flavor of the experience for me because when you understand the flavor everything everyone does is perfectly rational even though it appears irrational and self destructive.

For me the experience of exisistential guilt is not feeling authentic, always playing a role but desperate to stop but not knowing how because I float through life without identity and without identity I feel like I do not exist which is the feeling of being one of the undead.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Wow Kelly I read your post three times...thank you very much ..i find alot of value because i relate so much to what you said..

Micheala , can i ask why you even focus on this...you have alot on your plate...the title of your post was really inflammatory, but i don't think you really meant it to be...that's a hint that you have ALOT on your mind

...there is so much to how we cope, how we learn, how to know who we are....all personal ..
and my theory is that we should be doing our best to simplify things, not make them more complicated..

politics is pretty damned complicated..

[Lorileah]

*trying to be nice here*

Yes there are and will always be those who see themselves as not inclusive with the rest. They are very vocal and believe that in the big world that most here are "pretenders". I have always thought we should stand together to get the things we need or want. Others don't want the help. So, I just try and let them have their way and hope it all works out in the end.

For the most part the TS's and TG's here get along. I am sure that in any segment of society, there are the ones on the edge. It would be so easy if there was a solid line where we could make a demarcation.

[Kathryn Martin]

I am not sure what you mean with reparative therapy. Aversion therapy is clearly with us, at the CAMH in Toronto. It's called cool names now, but it's focus is to encourage children who are trans to dissociate themselves from their feelings.

I don't even know what the Trans Community is. Explaining a person who is gender queer a trans-whatever is a misnomer. Explaining a cross-dresser as trans-whatever seems to a misnomer. It seems more like a gender-expressionist or impressionist. A person who prefers a gender expression different from their biological sex and associated societal expectations are they trans-something? Persons who need to transcend their biological sex to bring it into congruence with their gender experience are maybe the only ones who are trans-something because of the transcendence which their intention and actions achieve.

There is no trans community except in the political field. It arose from the "united we are stronger" call to arms. As Reine sets out there are a few very vocal loudmouthed louts (sorry this is a description not a judgement :battingeyelashes:) who feel that they are being diminished because some might mistake others for them.

I think in the history of human existence being mistaken for someone else is very common and has often been the source of wars. So we have a war going on there. There would be no war if we all just went home. I have stopped discussing this nonsense, because as a sub set there is also a war going on among the young TS and the old TS whereby we older TS are considered fakes because we didn't die or transition when we were young.

It should make all of us laugh. What we should really do is explain who we are in all our differences and what we need to live full meaningful lives. That would really change things for all of us. No one every was sustainable elevated by stepping on others.


Hi All,
I mentioned Reparative therapy just so I could point out that it went the way of the Dodo and Gay camp. It was bad science that was more damaging than helpful.

:Miki

[docrobbysherry]

Thank u for allowing this thread to continue, Reine. I think it's important for everyone to express their 2 cents on such an important topic. Unfortunately, most of this goes way over my head! Swoosh!

I just like to look fem and have fun doing it! I only wish it were THAT SIMPLE for EVERYONE HERE!

There! That's MY OPINION! Maybe I'll get some change BACK?

[Bree-asaurus]

I think that this 'separatism' that you see is all in your head. Maybe you should take some time to think about why YOU feel this way.

One or two loud, ignorant people with ANY opinion do not define a group or a movement.

[Sharon]

I first became aware of "trans separatism" just a day ago and that was because of a person on site who began a blog a day or two earlier and chose to promote it. Her agenda seems to be to drive a wedge between transsexuals even though she claims to actually want to fight separatism. Go figure, huh?

Do not allow a few people to cloud your opinions about the vast majority of any segment of people, including the trans community. The trans community may not all be of one mind -- we ARE individuals, after all -- and we may have different opinions about certain topics -- but we are still a community.

[Anna M]

It seems to me that part of the argument stems from the use of "transgender" as an umbrella term. When thinking about such matters on my own, however, I really prefer to use "transgender" in a more limited sense: people whose assigned-at-birth gender does not match their actual gender, to parallel the use of "transsexual" to describe someone whose assigned-at-birth sex does not match their actual sex. A person can be one, or both, or neither. English is already too happy to conflate sex and gender, IMO, and I think trans* people do themselves a disservice by perpetuating this conflation.

To illustrate this a little bit with personal experience, I am very certain about being transgender. My assigned gender is not the one I identify with. I am still working out whether I am transsexual. I am working through figuring out how much of my dysphoria is related to cultural expectations of women's bodies and how much is the result of a mismatch between my assigned sex and my actual sex. (At the moment, I seem to be in the "why, yes, that is a large clitoris, not a penis, and I plan to fix it someday" camp most of the time, but feelings and desires and opinions can sometimes vary by the minute. At the same time, the slogan "Some women have penises. Get over it!" also makes me smile. The odyssey of learning and self-discovery continues. It was only a year ago that I finally admitted to myself that I am trans*, so I'm not expecting neat tidy answers anytime soon.)

But in general conversation, I mostly go with the flow of using "transgender" as an umbrella term - usage defines meaning, no matter what the Académie Française tries to tell anybody. *shrug*

Anna May

[MC-lite]

@Kaitlyn: I created this post because this topic was brought up in the middle of another post. Whereas that was not the right place for it to be, I felt that it needed to be discussed, because it was so emotionally charged. In the beginning of my transition, I was told by a psychologist that I could never be a woman because I couldn't have children. In a sense, we are judged by the rest of society by a similar yardstick (i.e. we don't have vaginas therefore we're not women)

I brought up Reparative / Aversion therapy because I was victim of this at a very young age from my mother. The psychological damage surfaced more than 30 years later in the form of a co-morbidity, and cost me dearly.

So, this topic hit home for me. I hope that nobody was offended, and I thank all who responded in a civil manner.

[Anna Lorree]

@Kaitlyn:...I was told by a psychologist that I could never be a woman because I couldn't have children.

I love that argument. My wife has had a hysterectomy, so can no longer have children. Does that mean she is no longer a woman? I have checked, and can assure you that she is! And what about post-menopausal women? They can't have children anymore either, so they must not be women anymore, either... And what about the chromosomal females who are simply barren for one medical reason or another? Your psychologist needs to remove his/her head from a sphincter.

Anna

[Inna]

lol, and the humans be humans........

As it seems nearly all civilizations have shown immense need of spirituality, but as soon as spirituality emerged the fractions did emerge as well, those who believed alike and those who believed otherwise, and of course those who didn't believe either but believed they were special in not believing in stuff that those other ones do, LOL!

So in a nutshell, its nothing new, and it will never change but perhaps will evolve into somewhat more cohesive form of disagreement. As I see it, when I discovered that my place amongst the boys felt uneasy and out of place, I immediately felt different, yet I truly didn't feel Transsexual, how could I, such perception was not present in 7 year old child not to mention medieval Poland at the time :o
Then as I slowly matured I could see similarities in my behavior with those of girls playing next to me. Still, I felt different yet not gender anything. Then life long struggle realizing that I like to feel like a woman even though I am a man, how wrong I was, yet lived every day waking up to the male world. Then eureka! I am a transsexual, and the journey begun, first Crossdresser in the closet since god only knows, sometimes I believe I dressed in my moms ovaries while still in the womb :), then crossdresser venturing outside of the confines of closet, then transgender individual, after which came an embrace of transsexuality and the label that goes with it.
After few years the forefront of my existence no longer felt wholesome putting transsexuality in front and I am just embracing the freedom of being just a woman, I always was. Or was I?

the debate can go on and on, but the fact is, that for most realization of who they are takes introspect and time to finaly come forth in knowing true self. I know of few cases amongst thousands perhaps millions that were obvious from the first day they were born, the rest who do not exude duality at birth it is a long and lonely journey.

At the end we are who we are to our selves, and when we are gone, no one will truly care of gender we tooled but that they miss the smile, the warmth and love we were blessed to share.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

@Kaitlyn: I created this post because this topic was brought up in the middle of another post. Whereas that was not the right place for it to be, I felt that it needed to be discussed, because it was so emotionally charged. In the beginning of my transition, I was told by a psychologist that I could never be a woman because I couldn't have children. In a sense, we are judged by the rest of society by a similar yardstick (i.e. we don't have vaginas therefore we're not women)

I brought up Reparative / Aversion therapy because I was victim of this at a very young age from my mother. The psychological damage surfaced more than 30 years later in the form of a co-morbidity, and cost me dearly.

So, this topic hit home for me. I hope that nobody was offended, and I thank all who responded in a civil manner.

not even a little bit of offense...i just wanted to share something with you..

as you can tell, "separatism" is something that one person brought up, and frankly not in a very thoughtful way...

in between your post and the one you referenced, we touch on practically every third rail

politics
autogynephilia
"true" transsexuals vs the rest.
aversion therapy
and the state of the trans-community..yikes!

as you go through all this, you are best served to focus on you, and what you know to be true..i'm just kind of counseling you to keep it simple and not start out your transition by inserting unnecessary baggage into it..:2c:

btw.. i was told by a therapist that i was not a transsexual.. that was 20+ yrs ago...I went just for anxiety, but blurted out that i crossdressed...she asked me a couple questions and laughed and told me that crossdressing is fine, but being transsexual was wrong, and that she "knew" i wasnt "that way"...it was a very strange couple of appointments...as a comedy aside, she showed up to the next appointment with some ball gowns for me!!
that's alot of stuff...and as you say, you are just starting out on a new part of your path...there is simply no reason to get into all that...

[noeleena]

Hi,

Who has any right to say what we are , & of cause where it started was what the midwife or G P said when we were born , oh you are a boy or your a girl because of what they saw in front of them boys with bits girls with nothing showing ,

Okay was that really the truth for every one not in our day , we did not have those fancy machines like we have now,

Well they / he ....WAS..... wrong now i dont blame him because no one could know, they were not mind readers, or had xray eye's,

im intersexed, yet in truth im a intersexed woman. so no drama there & wether we have a womb or not or a mix of boy / girl parts does not change who we are, though for some of us we show some of both, body wise mentaly emotinaly & how we look .

in truth a mix of both in so many ways that we are or cannot be ether or even seperate one from the other. we are so intermixed,

apart from us intersexed ones every one is different .

what happens with paint heres black & theres white , two very different colours so what happens when you mix them both together. its not black or white any more, so,

some of us are male some female & some of us are a mix of both ,
so who's better none we are just different thats all , & we can accept this ,

I have not had to fight to gain acceptance or push my way , because i was / have been accepted for who i am as a person ( human ).& second as a woman who is different,

...noeleena...

[amielts]

"Trans" is a relativism. From a physical point of view, being trans(whatever) and a woman are not mutually-exclusive. And from this standpoint, I find the objection nonsensical. From the political and social points of view, I completely understand the objections to inclusion.

Excluding people for political reasons is never good. And I feel this is what the SRS-based separatists are doing. They want the public to accept them on the grounds they are now post-op. Which leads to hostility against pre-ops and non-ops.


The funny thing about the "separatist" movement is that we all think a line needs to be drawn, but we all have a different place for the line. Kate and people like her want the line at SRS, people like me want the line at transition, and people who are really inclusive want the line at any form of TG expression. I don't think anybody wants the line at fetishism but that would just be silly.

I'm of the mind that the Post-Op crowd shouldn't really be in this fight because they are physically female with no further chance of being "caught". Just another woman as far as I'm concerned and aside from some residual healthcare prejudice their political bell is now just good old fashioned feminism. I think the real political battles are with the transitioners and even though there are wonderful progressive states like California, there are more regressive states like most of the flyovers. A cross dresser is essentially safe because they can just disappear into "male mode" whenever it suits them. A transitioner is out on a limb. My name change will take at least 12 more weeks but in the meantime there is no hiding these breasts, or my face for that matter. When the poo goes down, I don't have any escape from who I am. It's people like me who need protection.

My point is that pre-op and non-op TS need full legal protection, and are the most vulnerable. SRS-based separatists would limit the rights of these people. Since SRS is expensive, most TSs are actually pre-op. Therefore, the SRS-separatist agenda is detrimental to the rights of most TSs, let alone other TG groups. It is the SRS-based separatists that I am very concerned about. I have no problem with transition-based separatists at all, even though I don't agree with separatism itself. At least they don't have a dangerous agenda like preventing pre-op TSs from changing their birth certificate.

SRS-based separatists also sometimes use a straw man argument to sidetrack my points. They say they have different needs to occasional crossdressers. But they don't seem to address my point about pre-op and non-op full-time TSs when I talk to them about it. Pre-op and non-op full-time TSs clearly have similar needs to them, but are often excluded from their definition of TS. I specifically say pre-op and non-op because pre-op TS who are pre-op for 'too long' are often considered non-op by the more judgmental of the separatists.

The medical and legal definitions of TS usually includes the pre-op and non-op too. Unfortunately, the separatists too often excludes them.

[Aprilrain]

Hears voices arguing fading into the distance as she walks away.

Transition is all about me (or you if you're you). I didn't wake up one day and say "gee I really think I ought to join one of the least understood sexual minorities in existence." No, instead life became so unbearable I was willing to end it. Transition was a last ditch effort at life, the rest is icing.

Politicize your life if you wish just don't drag me into it. The "trans community" lives in the same place that unicorns and fairies live.

Social transition is a one heart and mind at a time kinda "war". Just live your life and be good people, don't "trans" people to death and they will soon see that you're basically the same person just nicer:heehee:

For those of you who have young boys you will know what I'm talking about,
Sensi Woo says the best way to defeat your enemy is to make them your friend

[MC-lite]

not even a little bit of offense...i just wanted to share something with you..

as you can tell, "separatism" is something that one person brought up, and frankly not in a very thoughtful way...

in between your post and the one you referenced, we touch on practically every third rail

politics
autogynephilia
"true" transsexuals vs the rest.
aversion therapy
and the state of the trans-community..yikes!

as you go through all this, you are best served to focus on you, and what you know to be true..i'm just kind of counseling you to keep it simple and not start out your transition by inserting unnecessary baggage into it..:2c:



No offense, but Your last line sounds a little bit condescending to me. I wanted to know what was so important about this that it should have been injected into the middle of a post that I was following. I learned a lot about the subject and realized that I -am- on one side of that argument. And that argument is a minefield, just as any religious or political discussion always is. At least I know how to broach the subject if it ever comes up in a conversation. (It probably will...)
A variant of it has already been thrown my way. Now I'm armed with enough facts to provide an intelligent response, one that does not smack of drama and strong emotion.

My gender variance is -not- new to me. I've been dealing with this issue within myself for over 40 years now. I chose not to act on it for reasons that would be deemed as logical and pragmatic.

If something has directly affected me, it's not "unnecessary baggage." It's an issue that raises questions. Some of which were answered here in a healthy exchange of ideas.

What could be better than that? :)

Warmest Regards,
:Miki.

[LeaP]

Excluding people for political reasons is never good. And I feel this is what the SRS-based separatists are doing. They want the public to accept them on the grounds they are now post-op. Which leads to hostility against pre-ops and non-ops.

My point is that pre-op and non-op TS need full legal protection, and are the most vulnerable. SRS-based separatists would limit the rights of these people. Since SRS is expensive, most TSs are actually pre-op. Therefore, the SRS-separatist agenda is detrimental to the rights of most TSs, let alone other TG groups. It is the SRS-based separatists that I am very concerned about. I have no problem with transition-based separatists at all, even though I don't agree with separatism itself. At least they don't have a dangerous agenda like preventing pre-op TSs from changing their birth certificate.

SRS-based separatists also sometimes use a straw man argument to sidetrack my points. They say they have different needs to occasional crossdressers. But they don't seem to address my point about pre-op and non-op full-time TSs when I talk to them about it. Pre-op and non-op full-time TSs clearly have similar needs to them, but are often excluded from their definition of TS. I specifically say pre-op and non-op because pre-op TS who are pre-op for 'too long' are often considered non-op by the more judgmental of the separatists.

The medical and legal definitions of TS usually includes the pre-op and non-op too. Unfortunately, the separatists too often excludes them.

You are misstating things. Many post-op TS simply wish to live as the women they are, not "be accepted because they are post-op". From one point of view you might say it amounts to the same thing. The true motive belies your agenda and political points, however.

Your statements on rights are problematic. You assume rights that are neither defined nor recognized in law. One cannot be said to be "denying" rights that do not exist. Mere assertion does not make something real. The notion of a right attached to a bureaucratic artifact like a birth certificate is problematic in itself. That doesn't invalidate legitimate concerns about documentation issues, of course, but those are amenable to solutions that are not based in notions of rights. In turn, that answers your needs and straw-man points.

Your statement on medical definitions is not accurate. Transsexualism has been regarded in spectrum terms for a very long time. See the original Benjamin scale.


Hears voices arguing fading into the distance as she walks away.

Transition is all about me (or you if you're you). I didn't wake up one day and say "gee I really think I ought to join one of the least understood sexual minorities in existence." No, instead life became so unbearable I was willing to end it. Transition was a last ditch effort at life, the rest is icing. ...


What she said.

Lea

[Julia_in_Pa]

Miki, everyone

Separatism as it relates to the plight of the TS and IS communities is needed at this time.
The general public as it stands currently still sees transsexual issues and transition through the lens of sexual fetishism and the choice of the mentally ill.
The process of living day to day 24-7 for the newly transitioned person is difficult beyond description for those that have not transitioned.
Every transitioned female seems to be asked the same thing over and over again. " isn't this just so you can fulfill a fantasy? " or " cross dressers are just that, cross dressers you don't need protection for that. " .

It's the same tired questions over and over and over. Transitioning and transitioned TS and IS people do not need their lives complicated further by aligning with pan sexuals, cross dressing fetishists or fantasy dressers who need nothing concerning legal protections yet concerning public perception taint the TS and IS persons legitimacy in the eyes of the general public.

We don't switch genders constantly like Pansexuals causing confusion to the general public. We don't dress as someone of the opposite sex, masturbate then discard clothing.
Yet this permeates the public's perception off what Transsexuality and Intersexuality is.

Many of us educate to correct the public's mistake but it's extremely difficult for the average person to wrap their head around for a few minutes when it actually takes hours to obtain an average grasp of what this is all about.

Sadly years of Springer and other garbage media have made being transsexual and intersexed concerning transition extremely difficult as it pertains to the political climate.

We don't need to be beaten down and dismissed further by an unaccepting public by aligning ourselves with the Transgender umbrella that houses people and conditions that have nothing in common with transitioned or transitioning TS and IS people.



Julia

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Thats ok mikeala...my thoughts were based simply on what you said...

If transition/full time (whatever we call it) was easy you would have done it along time ago..regardless of your past, this stuff is of no value to you right now....I know this..i waited too..

I call it sharing experience, you call it condescension.....so be it..
I stand by my comment and i truly wish you all the best

No worries.

+++++++

Amiel don't you see what you are saying?.."i have no problem with transition based separatists...its the SRS based separatists i'm worried about.."...I promise that argument goes nowhere fast...all you are saying is give me mine...

if you want to be politically active, you must make arguments that are convincing and draw people to your conclusion...and as you demonstrate, politics ALWAYS ends up truly being about one thing...self interest..

[CharleneT]

This all seems like arguments for arguing sake ... as well as being pretty close to useless in the everyday life of the average TS person. I do not feel like I need to go out in war against the oppressors (separatists??). Heck, all I really want is to get on with my life as it is ;) This "threat" is just semantics.

[Inna]

Well, here is another one, since we are on to new territory: "TRANSLITICALLY CORRECT"

[Frances]

Excluding people for political reasons is never good. And I feel this is what the SRS-based separatists are doing. They want the public to accept them on the grounds they are now post-op. Which leads to hostility against pre-ops and non-ops.

My point is that pre-op and non-op TS need full legal protection, and are the most vulnerable. SRS-based separatists would limit the rights of these people. Since SRS is expensive, most TSs are actually pre-op. Therefore, the SRS-separatist agenda is detrimental to the rights of most TSs, let alone other TG groups. It is the SRS-based separatists that I am very concerned about. I have no problem with transition-based separatists at all, even though I don't agree with separatism itself. At least they don't have a dangerous agenda like preventing pre-op TSs from changing their birth certificate.

SRS-based separatists also sometimes use a straw man argument to sidetrack my points. They say they have different needs to occasional crossdressers. But they don't seem to address my point about pre-op and non-op full-time TSs when I talk to them about it. Pre-op and non-op full-time TSs clearly have similar needs to them, but are often excluded from their definition of TS. I specifically say pre-op and non-op because pre-op TS who are pre-op for 'too long' are often considered non-op by the more judgmental of the separatists.

The medical and legal definitions of TS usually includes the pre-op and non-op too. Unfortunately, the separatists too often excludes them.

How is anyone excluding anyone, and from what? What power do post-op women have over anyone? I don't get this at all. I don't want the public to accept me because I am post-op, I don't want people to KNOW that I am post-op. What happened in your personal life to make you react this way? You use strong words like words hate, despise, opposition. Where is all this anger and obsessive thought coming from? Kelly offered a good analysis, but I am curious to know from you personally.

I have never met post-ops with agendas other than to live a normal life. How is a post-op woman going to prevent pre-ops from changing their birth certificate. Is anyone going to the House of Commons in Ontario to testify that it's a mistake? People are entitled to have an opinion about it, and opinions change over time. Mine has in regards to the DSM. Only fanatics impose their view on others.

Transsexuals are seen by the Canadian medical establishement as mentally ill people that cannot be cured by psychiatric methods (but they sure try). What power can we have? I know post-op trans women who do not want to associate with non-ops, but how do they exclude them? If anything, they exclude themselves from the larger community, not the other way around.

Amiel, if you want your birth certificate changed without surgery, lobby the instances that do have power, not post-op women trying to live their lives. And please stop villifying people.

[Sandra1746]

I may get flamed but; forming narrow definitions that exclude certain people because they don't "fit" one's definitions or categories is NOT productive. The whole point of this site, and the T** movements is to have public acceptance of people who are "different". We do ourselves no favors by encouraging division and dissension within our ranks. And we play into the hands of our opponents.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions BUT your right to enforce your opinion ends at your mind and body. Everyone is different and acceptance is the best principle.

Let a thousand flowers bloom,
Sandra1746

[Katesback]

Ya know something. When I see people that say that somone that has testicles and fits the exact definition of MALE is fighting to get some right to change thier birth certificate to FEMALE I think they are nuts!

Its all ok to get passport and drivers license changed and that will get you a job but damm it you got testicles and can be a father you got no right to be called FEMALE on your birth certificate!!!! If you feel you do your nuts! You dont deserve the status of female on your birth certificate!!!!!!!!!!

Katie

[Aprilrain]

I wanted to know what was so important about this that it should have been injected into the middle of a post that I was following. .

NOTHING, there is nothing important about a problem that doesn't actually exist. the idea that there is some conspiracy against transpeople of any description from any other group of people is as mythical as the idea of a "trans community" itself. There are TSes, some have surgery some don't, some are loud mouthed bitches some aren't, some go to support group meetings some don't so on and so forth.

That having been said I can't wait to have SRS so I can get my secret decoder ring:devil:

Oh and Kate you do know there are states that don't give a shit about a your little surgery right????
I'm from Ohio, I will NEVER be allowed to change the male designation on my BC. So enough with the BC nonsense.

[Badtranny]

The medical and legal definitions of TS usually includes the pre-op and non-op too. Unfortunately, the separatists too often excludes them.

...but really, at the end of the day who cares what a group of post-op trannies thinks about non-ops? There are some that are so enamored of their new vaginas that they don't even realize they still look like men. These people are about as worrisome as a gust of wind in regard to my rights. Here in beautiful California, SRS isn't required for anything except vaginal sex, so I'm a pre-op/non-op that is in the process of changing name and gender on EVERYTHING. I'm sure that may unsettle a certain contingent of trans women, but I'm sure that they will get over it in due time.

There is not a single group of trans people that is big enough to make a show of force politically. We are literally just bitching at each other over things that mean nothing if not less to the rest of the world. Now if EVERY CD were to jump in the TG fight we might have some political clout, but most of them typically vote conservative anyway so on second thought it would be best if they stayed out of it.

[Frances]

NOTHING, there is nothing important about a problem that doesn't actually exist. the idea that there is some conspiracy against transpeople of any description from any other group of people is as mythical as the idea of a "trans community" itself. There are TSes, some have surgery some don't, some are loud mouthed bitches some aren't, some go to support group meetings some don't so on and so forth.

That's what I mean. This Saturday is Trans Pride Day in Montréal. I will be seeing a lot of trans folks, including women with penises and men with vaginas. Other than that, there are some trans individuals that I associate with and see once in a while. "Trans community" is an oxymoron, especially for post-ops. As a matter of fact, "anything-op" stops being a preoccupation after the op. Relationships, money, career and quality of life become more important. There is no conspiracy!

[Bree-asaurus]

...but really, at the end of the day who cares what a group of post-op trannies thinks about non-ops? There are some that are so enamored of their new vaginas that they don't even realize they still look like men. These people are about as worrisome as a gust of wind in regard to my rights. Here in beautiful California, SRS isn't required for anything except vaginal sex, so I'm a pre-op/non-op that is in the process of changing name and gender on EVERYTHING. I'm sure that may unsettle a certain contingent of trans women, but I'm sure that they will get over it in due time.

There is not a single group of trans people that is big enough to make a show of force politically. We are literally just bitching at each other over things that mean nothing if not less to the rest of the world. Now if EVERY CD were to jump in the TG fight we might have some political clout, but most of them typically vote conservative anyway so on second thought it would be best if they stayed out of it.

To add onto what Melissa is saying...

Part of transitioning usually includes obtaining the ability to not give a FLYING @#$% what other people think. Why are you letting such a negligible portion of the trans community (which is already an insanely small fraction of society) get under your skin?

You mentioned something about just being able to live our lives and do what we have to do to be happy. Why don't you do that and stop complaining that not everybody thinks the way you do?

[Marleena]

There is not a single group of trans people that is big enough to make a show of force politically. We are literally just bitching at each other over things that mean nothing if not less to the rest of the world. Now if EVERY CD were to jump in the TG fight we might have some political clout, but most of them typically vote conservative anyway so on second thought it would be best if they stayed out of it.

Lol..not sure on the voting thing Melissa.:) But there are quite a few CD girls on this board opening doors for TS ladies already. You see the general public doesn't know if they are looking at a CD or TS woman. They are showing the public there is nothing to fear. Yet they still don't credit for that. Many TS women still look at the whole CD grouping with disdain.

It's actually okay TS women are fighting amongst themselves here because it leaves the CD women alone. So carry on.

[Bree-asaurus]

It's actually okay TS women are fighting amongst themselves here because it leaves the CD women alone. So carry on.

Yes... because that's what we trannies do... sit around all day waiting to find a CD to give a hard time... ?!?!?! WHAT?!?!?!?!

[ReineD]

Amielts, I googled "separatist vs. inclusionist" after reading your posts and did find blogs discussing this mostly by people like you who feel marginalized. But I didn't get the impression there is an organized "separatist" movement or anything, just a handful of people with strong opinions making it sound much worse than it really is. You need to pay attention to the hundreds of other, more quiet voices who simply go about their lives making the decisions that are best for them.

The debate is opinion-based only. There are no laws or medical practices, as far as I can see, that are actually being changed to favor post-op transwomen.

[LeaP]

How is anyone excluding anyone, and from what? What power do post-op women have over anyone? I don't get this at all ....

I have never met post-ops with agendas other than to live a normal life. How is a post-op woman going to prevent pre-ops from changing their birth certificate. ...

I know post-op trans women who do not want to associate with non-ops, but how do they exclude them? If anything, they exclude themselves from the larger community, not the other way around.

Amiel, if you want your birth certificate changed without surgery, lobby the instances that do have power, not post-op women trying to live their lives. And please stop villifying people.

Exactly.

The entire "separatist" framing is itself a straw-man. The questions at hand are whether or not TG people should be able to get amended documents and by what means. The post-op TS population is NOT doing anything to prevent TG people pursuing that, certainly not as a movement. A very small handful of individuals voicing an opinion do not a movement make.

Trying to posture a separatist movement is an attempt to portray the TS population as divisive. That amounts to a guilting approach when coupled with rhetoric about inclusiveness. The facts are: no movement, no guilt about living normal lives, and not much interest.

I would add one point about co-opting. While I don't know how big the TG population is, it is almost certainly many times the size of the TS population. Why then the interest in TS political participation, since their added numbers aren't compelling? Because they are better-known and understood by the general public. Their addition would lend the effort a legitimacy that the public is (probably) unwilling to grant the TG population, at least as it extends to the documentation question.


This Saturday is Trans Pride Day in Montréal. I will be seeing a lot of trans folks, including women with penises and men with vaginas.

Thank you for the prompt about trans men. Trans men may or may not get one of the various procedures designed to give them a phallus. They all wind up retaining their vaginas, however. This is the other side of Kate's testicular test. To be consistent, one would have to maintain that they should not be able to get BCs amended because they retain female anatomy. I don't believe that and I don't think most others do, either.

Lea

[Marleena]

Yes... because that's what we trannies do... sit around all day waiting to find a CD to give a hard time... ?!?!?! WHAT?!?!?!?!

Not directed at you Bree or anyone in particular Bree.:) We know of a couple that have that have complete disdain for CDers.

[Kathryn Martin]

I have no problem with transition-based separatists at all, even though I don't agree with separatism itself. At least they don't have a dangerous agenda like preventing pre-op TSs from changing their birth certificate.

So the distinction is drawn between a gender variant person of the crossdressing variety who can be excluded from protections but a gender variant person who has a cross-gender identification but has male reproductive organs either fully or partially (i.e. orchiectomy) cannot be excluded from protections. The reason you give for this is
"At least they don't have a dangerous agenda like preventing pre-op TSs from changing their birth certificate..

Especially in Ontario there is a simple and very useable solution for pre-op and non-op persons namely get your drivers license changed to reflect your gender correctly. Passports can be obtained with the correct gender marker in Canada for a transition period of two years provided surgery is obtained in the end. The reason why the inclusion of gender identity and gender expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act and various provincial Acts have been on hold is because of it being called the Bathroom Bill, which essentially expresses a fear of persons with penises entering women washrooms.

The main argument put forward by what you call "separatists" is that if the political focus is on gender variant persons by conflating their conditions with the transsexual condition, health care issues for transsexual persons are not correctly addressed. The "radical separatists" attempt to achieve that by calling anyone who is not them everything under the sun but women. The reality is however, that because of the conflation of the separate conditions of gender variant and transsexual persons society has so far managed to deny health care at an appropriate level to all of us. By viewing expression, identity and disability based on in-congruent reproductive organs one condition, society is able to maintain that we chose to be the way we are and effectively deny our existence as we know it. The issues for pre-op transsexuals is one of inadequate health care coverage to aleviate their condition. The issue for non-op transsexuals is either that they are gender variant that is they desire to remain biologically male, is that there needs to be a recognition of that fact by both the persons affected as well as society, or if an individual health conditions prevents surgery because of the risks then adequate health care is necessary to ensure the closest approximation to being who they need to be.

Gender variant persons need protections to ensure that their expression is protected and cannot be used against them in any context. Legislation is were it is at, by ensuring their protection.

In my view it so dangerous to simplify these issues. There are no "separatists" in reality, and there is woeful lack of understanding within the "trans-community" of the health care and public policy issues that are involved in these matters. If everyone focused their efforts on resolving those issues instead of carrying the flag of whatever stripe maybe we would actually get somewhere. I distrust flags, they always kill people.

[Lorileah]

"and when they came for me there was no one to stand up." Isolationism hasn't worked before. Minorities don't do well alienating those who are around them and hold empatheic and sympathetic views. Focusing on things that are stereotypic does not help your cause (and all members of the TG community, and that includes every person who does not fit gender stereotypes) deserves protection and rights equal to any other person. When you exclude yourself you are basically stating that you agree that some people are not equal to you. If educating the world was easy, then everyone would be on the same page. It is hard to break old habits, it is hard to unlearn something. It takes time and it takes patience and energy. It works a lot better if you have allies, even if you believe the allies are freaks and perverts (and who decides that?...You do because you were TAUGHT that by another who was narrow minded).

I totally agree with Melissa's analogy of the line. When you draw the line so close to you though, you don't have much room to defend yourself and you cannot get many around you to help.

[LeaP]

The issues for pre-op transsexuals is one of inadequate health care coverage to aleviate their condition. The issue for non-op transsexuals is either that they are gender variant that is they desire to remain biologically male, is that there needs to be a recognition of that fact by both the persons affected as well as society, or if an individual health conditions prevents surgery because of the risks then adequate health care is necessary to ensure the closest approximation to being who they need to be.


You would have non-ops "gender-variant". From a public understanding and concern perspective, that may make some sense. But the obvious should be stated also:

1) This approach ignores other aspects of male anatomy. Does that trivialize identity (or at least official identity) into bathroom concerns and similar? Strictly speaking, from a physical standpoint a post-op is also gender variant.

2) There is no gender variant category for official documents, unless that is part of what you would propose in legislation.

Would you be satisfied with a gender variant designation yourself were you not to get SRS? You are clearly, completely a woman now. I understand the difficulties in weeding out those who arguably should be denied a female marker (take your least favorite category pick) - but it should be possible.


"and when they came for me there was no one to stand up." Isolationism hasn't worked before.

Lorileah, this isn't a clear case of isolationism at all. People are disagreeing on mutually-exclusive points, those that prevent combining of efforts. In fact, if Kathryn is right, TSs inclusion in the transgender movement has directly resulted in denial of care. Coalitions dilute focus and results by masking differences, as valuable as they can be otherwise.

Lea

[Kaitlyn Michele]

...but really, at the end of the day who cares what a group of post-op trannies thinks about non-ops? There are some that are so enamored of their new vaginas that they don't even realize they still look like men.

There is not a single group of trans people that is big enough to make a show of force politically. We are literally just bitching at each other over things that mean nothing if not less to the rest of the world. Now if EVERY CD were to jump in the TG fight we might have some political clout, but most of them typically vote conservative anyway so on second thought it would be best if they stayed out of it.

Even Iff th CD's all got totegehter and voited in one big block it would still be a dropp in the buket

sorry for the spellling ...i was staring at my virgina

[Katesback]

Are you teaching your vagina to talk Katlyn? LOL

Aprilrain I was very clearly talking about pre op or non op males wanting to get thier birth certificate changed prior to surgery. I was not talking about Post op women in some states that cannot change thier birth certificate. That dear is a different topic.

I still am in awe that there are nut cases that think it is acceptable and want to fight for the right to change thier birth certificate to female while they have testicles. I sit here shaking my head. Perhaps people like this are why so many post op women vanish into the normal world and abandon the trans community. I doubt these people realize the ramifications of the fight they are working towards. I mean if they got thier legislation passed then the rest of society would have to figure out what male and female is. Is it in your head? My god what a confusing mess. Sorry nut cases but I and the rest of society wont accept your push for such stupid changes.

Ya want a passport and drivers license that says female thats fine. Totally cool. Thats all you need. A birth certificate though is absurd. Does that make me a separatist? No because truthfully my view would mirror 99.9% of society wishes and you nut cases are the ones that are separatists.

Katie

[LeaP]

Even Iff th CD's all got totegehter and voited in one big block it would still be a dropp in the buket

sorry for the spellling ...i was staring at my virgina

Funny!

Since we're in comedy mode, let me point out that the value of CD participation in-toto wouldn't come from the numbers, it would come from the entertainment value of the prominent names that would appear on the list. :laughing:

Lea

[elizabethamy]

There are so many things to be done -- job discrimination, health insurance exclusion clauses, basic civil rights for starters. Gender identity on official documents is important, especially for driver's license, passport, etc. The biggest problem we have is not the divisions among our selves but that our reputation in society is so awful that our closest loved ones beg us to keep our transgenderedness a deep secret (if they even know about it!) to spare us and our friends and family humiliation and embarrassment.

I don't know about government health plans, but my employer's insurance has very few restrictions except for those involving transgender issues (what the policy calls "sex change.") This can be interpreted by the insurance underwriters to mean not only surgery and aftercare but also hormones, psychiatry and therapy for terrified people who seek help for overwhelming gender dysphoria. (None of it is covered, while every other mental health and physical health issue is.)

Meanwhile, virtually every week someone posts on the forum about a transgender person being beaten or murdered for her appearance. In my two cents we have to stand together, to help each other educate this ignorant world, so that coming out won't be life threatening and having a transgendered member of one's family or circle of friends or work colleagues won't be embarrassing and ashaming. If we do that, my guess is that basic civl rights will follow, and after that we can have a (um) catfight over who deserves special treatment.

p.s. While I write this I'm listening to Thich Nhat Hahn describe his former lives -- he was a tree and a rock, among other things. All we want is to say we had a former life in another gender!

elizabethamy

[elizabethamy]

One more thought -- why would we want to alter birth certificates? You were born who and how you were. I know that adoption results in the opportunity to alter the adopted child's birth certificate so that the parents won't have to explain it every time they want to take him or her on an airplane, but I hope (as parent of an adoptee) that somewhere deep in the reservoir of the county health office there is information about who the actual birth parents were, just as there should be information about the original gender, somewhere...

[Lorileah]

Y

Lorileah, this isn't a clear case of isolationism at all. People are disagreeing on mutually-exclusive points, those that prevent combining of efforts. In fact, if Kathryn is right, TSs inclusion in the transgender movement has directly resulted in denial of care. Coalitions dilute focus and results by masking differences, as valuable as they can be otherwise.

Lea


You really don't buy that do you? Have you even been listening to the politicians recently? The denial of care isn't because of being transgendered it is from being poor and/or female. Especially the poor part in this case. If you had money this would be a moot point. SRS would be as easy as paying a doctor. Health care is denied based on income level more than anything else. Rich gays, transsexuals, egotists and morons don't have trouble getting care. Do you believe taht if the TS people were an entity on their own that health care, housing, civil rights, would be easier to get?

[arbon]

One more thought -- why would we want to alter birth certificates? There are a lot of reasons but one big one would be marriage.

And - privacy, your going along living your life and someone digs a little bit about you and pulls that - could create all sorts of problems your life.


just as there should be information about the original gender, somewhere... Why? What purpose does it serve?

[Anna Lorree]

I still am in awe that there are nut cases that think it is acceptable and want to fight for the right to change thier birth certificate to female while they have testicles. I sit here shaking my head. Perhaps people like this are why so many post op women vanish into the normal world and abandon the trans community. I doubt these people realize the ramifications of the fight they are working towards. I mean if they got thier legislation passed then the rest of society would have to figure out what male and female is. Is it in your head? My god what a confusing mess. Sorry nut cases but I and the rest of society wont accept your push for such stupid changes.

Ya want a passport and drivers license that says female thats fine. Totally cool. Thats all you need. A birth certificate though is absurd. Does that make me a separatist? No because truthfully my view would mirror 99.9% of society wishes and you nut cases are the ones that are separatists.

Katie

Speaking from a strictly legal perspective, I think a large portion of society would take it a bit further and say that a birth certificate should record the state of the person at birth. As such, yours would still say male, as I assume you had testicles back then. Having SRS 20-50 years later doesn't change what parts were there at birth, which is what a birth certificate actually certifies. So when viewed from that perspective, you having yours changed after SRS is probably as wrong to most people out there as somebody having theirs changed pre-SRS.

I understand you have your personal point of view, you have stated it quite firmly. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I even publicly agree with you from time to time. I also understand that I may be flamed for jumping into this as I am. That's OK, too. I put big girl panties on when I got dressed this morning. For me, this is all arbitrary. I'm not transitioning right now, and if I decide to later, I live in California. As such, I have a LOT of latitude with regard to options. Personally, I wouldn't try to get any of my documents changed until I started transition and could actually pass fairly well. It would just make dealing with society easier, which is where most of the pain in the butt for Trans people comes from in the first place.

Anna

[Frances]

One more thought -- why would we want to alter birth certificates? You were born who and how you were. I know that adoption results in the opportunity to alter the adopted child's birth certificate so that the parents won't have to explain it every time they want to take him or her on an airplane, but I hope (as parent of an adoptee) that somewhere deep in the reservoir of the county health office there is information about who the actual birth parents were, just as there should be information about the original gender, somewhere...

In many provinces in Canada, the birth certificate has to be changed first to able to change the gender marker on other documents, and it cannot be changed without SRS.

[kellycan27]

There are a lot of reasons but one big one would be marriage.

And - privacy, your going along living your life and someone digs a little bit about you and pulls that - could create all sorts of problems your life.

Why? What purpose does it serve?


Your original information doesn't just disappear. While the state or the fed may allow your female status .. you will always be "Joe" to them. Marriage for a TS is a slippery slope even with the proper documents. Sure if you have a b/c that says you are a female.. you can get a marriage license and get married, but if the state that you marry in does not recognize "same sex marriage" it could come back later to bite you in the butt. Should the occasion arise your marriage won't be recognized as valid.
I am not sure how many TS people know this but.. in the case of a TS marriage... A couple may not file a "Joint" tax return, because according to DOMA a valid marriage occurs between one man and on woman. In a transsexual marriage your only options are to file separately or head of household, and only one can claim any dependents. If you marry in a same sex state you may enjoy all the bells and whistles as any other couple, but as the name implies.. it's still considered "same sex" Joe.
As far as privacy goes, it's not your b/c that will give one away it's your social security number, tax number, tax id.. call it what you will. You are stuck with that number for life and behind that number lies your information.

[elizabethamy]

i stand corrected on birth certificates -- if you need them for use in the present day, then they should reflect who you are right now. Perhaps I'm going off the deep end with my fondness for the precision of words, but why do they call them birth certificates if they don't match who you were when you were born, who your birth parents were, etc? They should call them status certificates or something like that. And in terms of record keeping, perhaps it's the academic side of me that would want to be able to track and therefore study (with due confidentiality protocols as most universities and hospitals have) populations. For example you can't study the behavior of adoptees and how they differ from "biological" children in the same household if you can/'t reliably identify the adopted ones. Similarly, somewhere there will be $$ and interest for a massive panel study of the health and lives of thousands of transgendered people, but that could only be valid if the birth records were available to the researchers...

....i'm sorry, what was this thread about? sorry...

[LeaP]

You really don't buy that do you? Have you even been listening to the politicians recently? The denial of care isn't because of being transgendered it is from being poor and/or female. Especially the poor part in this case. If you had money this would be a moot point. SRS would be as easy as paying a doctor. Health care is denied based on income level more than anything else. Rich gays, transsexuals, egotists and morons don't have trouble getting care. Do you believe taht if the TS people were an entity on their own that health care, housing, civil rights, would be easier to get?

Trans exclusions in insurance and gov't plans are due to two primary things: the perception that the medical procedures are cosmetic, and the belief that denying them is cheaper than covering them.

Procedures like SRS, trach shaves, etc. are cosmetic for non-TS. Grouping CD and TG with TS has weakened their medical necessity case. The exclusion policies started becoming widespread when the transgender movement started. Yes, I believe that exclusions have social and political support because of anti-trans bias.

I think the best way to get insurance coverage for transsexuals is to continue pressing medical necessity in conjunction with anti-discrimination efforts. Both are needed with private insurance in particular because it is permissible to arbitrarily exclude all kinds of coverages in private contracts - but not if you discriminate against a protected group. Things like the recent EEOC ruling help in this regard.

I see no advantage whatsoever in coalition politics on the insurance issue - that is unless the coalition would support coverage for TS only. That's unlikely (compare the identity issue) and, as a result TS lose.

I agree that access to care itself has a rich/poor aspect. I disagree that exclusionary policies in insurance plans are a rich/poor issue.

The cost issue has been analyzed by the Human Rights Campaign and the data suggests the concerns are unfounded.

Each of the other issues you mentioned are separate discussions on their own merits.

Lea

[elizabethamy]

The problem with insurance and neat categories is -- as is my situation and that of so, so many on this site and everywhere in the world -- that waking up and knowing you need SRS is not the typical path. If insurance denies therapy to the crossdresser who walks into the counselor's office to ask why he is doing this and what's it mean, denies it again as he realizes his problems are much deeper than a little dressing, denies it again when he wants his hormones checked, denies it again, when HRT is sought to confirm a gender dysphoria diagnosis, and so on and so on...leaving a person with no care for what feels like madness 24 hours a day...whereas anything else (schizophrenia? brain tumor? thyroid gone haywire?) that "feels like madness" is completely covered. That's why I think we should be one big coalition on this, because the denial of care happens at all levels to all kinds of us. Both my therapist and my endo have told me that they use a veritable wizardry of codes that have nothing to do with gender -- even though that's why I'm in their offices -- because otherwise my care would be denied.

e.

[LeaP]

But the myriad codes approach is perfectly legitimate during discovery. And even with a GID diagnosis, co-morbidity makes alternate codes permissible and ethical anyway. The only real coverage issues are for HRT, SRS, and (maybe) plastics, all for transsexuals.

[kellycan27]

i stand corrected on birth certificates -- if you need them for use in the present day, then they should reflect who you are right now. Perhaps I'm going off the deep end with my fondness for the precision of words, but why do they call them birth certificates if they don't match who you were when you were born, who your birth parents were, etc? They should call them status certificates or something like that. And in terms of record keeping, perhaps it's the academic side of me that would want to be able to track and therefore study (with due confidentiality protocols as most universities and hospitals have) populations. For example you can't study the behavior of adoptees and how they differ from "biological" children in the same household if you can/'t reliably identify the adopted ones. Similarly, somewhere there will be $$ and interest for a massive panel study of the health and lives of thousands of transgendered people, but that could only be valid if the birth records were available to the researchers...



....i'm sorry, what was this thread about? sorry...

B/C's reflect who you are when you are born, and one can amend them to reflect who you are right now, but the bottom line is along with the information of who you are right now sits the the information of who you once were. If the information of who you once were just disappeared anyone could could just change their identity and become someone else in order to escape things such as crimes for one. My husband and I have 2 adopted children and while we have amended b/c's for them that show us as their parents, their adoptive status is still a matter of record with the county and state. ( although sealed because they are minors) Does a "study" of adopted children or transgendered people for the basis of information gathering or making money trump the the person's right to privacy? Do the protocols you mention have a guarantee that the information WON"T GET OUT? Are adopted or transgendered people obligated to have their information given out in order that studies be fueled by their information?

[LeaP]

... why do they call them birth certificates if they don't match who you were when you were born...

That's the thing, isn't it? They don't match who you were in the case of transsexuals.

The truth is that they aren't accurate in a lot of other cases, either. Intersex in particular, but by no means limited to them.

Corrections should be distinguished from other kinds of amendments. I see no reason to keep a historical record of an incorrect BC gender marker decision based solely on a superficial exam of genitals.

Take another case - one of a cissexual child. Suppose the doctor mismarks the form and notices it a couple of days later. Should he not be able to correct it? What's the utility of an amendment trail?

A correction is either legitimate or it is not.

Lea

[elizabethamy]

kelly,
as i prepare to move back to a town where i am well known and where i have a new job among colleagues I've worked with in some cases for 20 years, it's obvious that my need for privacy and secrecy at this moment is absolute. So I'm sensitive to the confidentiality issues. I can say that having worked in the offices that certify research projects (they're called IRB's, or Institutional Research Boards), the penalties for violating the kind of confidentiality we are talking about are monstrous. These penalties have been enacted from time to time, and it's possible to have all the research of an entire university shut down over such an issue -- it's not just a problem for individual scholars. For something like birth records, by the time all the coding was done, even the primary researcher would have no idea who these people were originally. It's safe. And it's necessary. Because while there are some interesting studies about CD/TG/TS people, what we don't know vastly outweighs what we do, and a lot of work is going to need doing so that we can ujltimately find the answers to all our faborite questions, such as: what causes it? is it a progression or static? how many of us are there? what cuases late in life discovery (or early in life failure to discover)? what are the outcomes of the various treatments (accepted ones from SOC7 as well as others) and nontreatments? what really is the suicide rate? and so on and so on.

Reserachers have asked all these questions, but usually of non-random or tiny samples, due to lack of funding for large-scale studies. If we want to get answers, we'll have to trust the process, and I can honestly say that it's very safe.

elizabethamy

[Kathryn Martin]

You would have non-ops "gender-variant". From a public understanding and concern perspective, that may make some sense.Non-ops for me are persons who prefer to maintain male genitals while presenting as female for instance. In the case of FtM persons medical science is not as advanced as with MtF persons, they would fall for me under the medically not attainable group. But there is a clear distinction. Keeping your sex at birth status because you prefer to do so (and not for medical reasons) is clearly a statement of fact. Society can legislatively protect those that fall into this category. Those that cannot be fully transformed because of medical reasons need health care options that meet their need to maximize closest approximation to their actual gender experience.



But the obvious should be stated also:

1) This approach ignores other aspects of male anatomy. Does that trivialize identity (or at least official identity) into bathroom concerns and similar? Strictly speaking, from a physical standpoint a post-op is also gender variant.

2) There is no gender variant category for official documents, unless that is part of what you would propose in legislation. Again the operative concept is "closest approximation". Medical science is not advanced enough to reconfigure male anatomy to a female anatomy. To a degree, none of us can ever be full women because we cannot create female reproductive organs. Identity of transsexual persons is never the real issue even though often it is masked for years by the need to conform and meet societal expectations to survive.

Society trivializes the needs of transsexuals into a bathroom concern. It likewise trivializes the security of women and children as well as gender variant persons into a bathroom concern. It is a complete wedge approach to suppress anyone dealing with the real issue which is health care and need for legislative action.

I am not sure that there really needs to be a gender marker on official documents at all. Considering that from the day of my birth, someone looked at my crotch to determine who I, was reveals a patriarchal, privileged male dominated approach to all things gender. These things were conceived as part of the social contract at a time when no one but male property owners had the right to vote. If you didn't have a penis you were a chattel. Understanding the abhorrence against persons who wanted to have theirs removed gives you a historical context to what we are fighting against every day of our lives. It is a male dominated social contract, but no real marker of identity. The argument in the Ontario case that generated these threads went that gender markers are part of "foundation documents to determine identity". Nowhere is this more apparent than with intersex persons. In their case, there is no identifying relationship between sex and identity. So for "social and emotional concerns" some idiot will decide who they are, based on which of their reproductive organ systems is more prominent.

Gender variant persons must be protected by laws and regulation not by gender markers. If you are a male who expresses his femininity in your appearance you must be protected to ensure you are treated like everyone else.



Would you be satisfied with a gender variant designation yourself were you not to get SRS? You are clearly, completely a woman now. I understand the difficulties in weeding out those who arguably should be denied a female marker (take your least favorite category pick) - but it should be possible. Do we rally need "designations?

[kellycan27]

kelly,
as i prepare to move back to a town where i am well known and where i have a new job among colleagues I've worked with in some cases for 20 years, it's obvious that my need for privacy and secrecy at this moment is absolute. So I'm sensitive to the confidentiality issues. I can say that having worked in the offices that certify research projects (they're called IRB's, or Institutional Research Boards), the penalties for violating the kind of confidentiality we are talking about are monstrous. These penalties have been enacted from time to time, and it's possible to have all the research of an entire university shut down over such an issue -- it's not just a problem for individual scholars. For something like birth records, by the time all the coding was done, even the primary researcher would have no idea who these people were originally. It's safe. And it's necessary. Because while there are some interesting studies about CD/TG/TS people, what we don't know vastly outweighs what we do, and a lot of work is going to need doing so that we can ujltimately find the answers to all our faborite questions, such as: what causes it? is it a progression or static? how many of us are there? what cuases late in life discovery (or early in life failure to discover)? what are the outcomes of the various treatments (accepted ones from SOC7 as well as others) and nontreatments? what really is the suicide rate? and so on and so on.

Reserachers have asked all these questions, but usually of non-random or tiny samples, due to lack of funding for large-scale studies. If we want to get answers, we'll have to trust the process, and I can honestly say that it's very safe.

elizabethamy

Is it absolutely safe? Sorry but i just don't agree that in the name of research people should be able to pry into the private lives of others, no matter how good that they feel that their intentions are. People should have the right to participate or not in these studies. To me this smacks of the "greater good" something like Homeland Securities having been granted sweeping powers for the "safety" or "good" of all. I may agree that the information gathered in your studies may very well be helpful but at what cost to the rights and liberties of those who's lives are being invaded? Let's just say that the information is kept a secret, here again I have to ask what "right" do researchers have to my or my adopted children's personal information if gathered without my express knowledge or permission?

I am editing this because of something that you said earlier: I used to be a ticket agent for a major airline and people would often ask me if the airplanes were "safe". I'd give them my biggest most pleasant smile and say.. why these planes are absolutely safe. I would put my sainted mother on one in a heartbeat!. ( and to further subdue their fears I would add) You know.. the FAA has some very stringent rules on maintenance and safety and if we are found in violation we could he heavily fined or even have our aircraft grounded! :heehee:

[Aprilrain]

Is it absolutely safe? Sorry but i just don't agree that in the name of research people should be able to pry into the private lives of others, no matter how good that they feel that their intentions are. People should have the right to participate or not in these studies. To me this smacks of the "greater good" something like Homeland Securities having been granted sweeping powers for the "safety" or "good" of all. I may agree that the information gathered in your studies may very well be helpful but at what cost to the rights and liberties of those who's lives are being invaded? Let's just say that the information is kept a secret, here again I have to ask what "right" do researchers have to my or my adopted children's personal information if gathered without my express knowledge or permission?

its the government, what could possibly go wrong?!:lol:

[Badtranny]

its the government, what could possibly go wrong?!:lol:

OMG what a lovely new avatar.

[Anna Lorree]

its the government, what could possibly go wrong?!:lol:

Three things:

1. I love your new avatar!

2. I love your top.

3. I work for local government, your sarcasm is well founded.

Anna

[Aprilrain]

Thank you Anna and Misty! its a dress and its no longer too short since i altered it:heehee:

[LeaP]

Wow. What an avatar! Beautiful!

Lea

[elizabethamy]

After I second the praise for April's fab avatar -- you look fantastic! let me apologize for creating a monster here.

No studies of living people can be done without their consent. Birth records -- I don't honestly know what the policy is for research access to them, but if such access were to be granted, the researcher would not even be allowed to copy, photocopy, transcribe, scan, type or otherwise preserve the original information beyond the purpose of establishing a baseline of aggregated (not individual) data. If, in such a hypothetical study, an adult were to be asked if he/she were transgendered, he/she would have to consent to answer the question, even to take the survey, and could individually demand confidentiality, and shut down the entire medical school and win enough money for SRS for everyone on this forum via lawsuit. Same with adoption. We don't keep it a secret that our son is adopted, but if people want to think he looks a lot like one or both of us (and he does), then we just let them keep their belief. If we wanted to keep it a secret, we could easily do that. So really, it's safe as an airplane that is sitting on the tarmac, to use kelly's analogy.

My overall point is that almost all we know about cd/tg/ts people is taken from studies of people who present themselves to the medical sector seeking some kind of treatment. Which means that until we can do some kind of study of those who haven't sought treatment, we really can't generalize very effectively about the situation of people like us. But even those closeted-nontreated people would have to agree to be interviewed under promises of confidentiality...for whatever you think those promises are worth.

I find myself increasingly wondering why we have to state our gender on every form under the sun. I agree that there seems no point in so assiduously tracking it when it's irrelevant to 99% of every activity that requires a form. And ther'es never a box to check "Other!"

[Frances]

I have nothing to add right now, except YOU LOOK FABULOUS APRIL!

[Julia_in_Pa]

April,

You look fantastic!!!


Julia

[Aprilrain]

Thanks everyone......:D

My wife took this pic in Panara, note the carrot cake muffin in the foreground:heehee:
Ironically we were talking about her new "boyfriend" :daydreaming:(she would be saying, "he's not my boyfriend! yeah OK baby doll:devil:) and how she likes his arms and how much she liked her "husbands" arms. I said, "what? You don't like my arms?" "Not the same", she says:straightface:

[LeaP]

Avatars are breaking out all over. Julia, you look terrific.

Lea

[ReineD]

Is it in your head?

Yes, gender identity is in our heads. This is the WPATH's definition:


Gender identity: A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch).

I won't enter the debate as to whether non-ops should or should not have their birth certificates altered. There is much to consider in this debate and it is over my head at the moment. But I will say that your comments are hurtful to our members who do fully identify as female, fully live as female, and who have not had SRS nor do they foresee having it in the near future (for a variety of reasons).

AT least you could stop referring to non-ops as nut cases, or men, and stop using the pronoun "he" when they do identify as females, and stop blaming them for the post-op TSs who leave the community and go stealth. You can disagree with their political views, but must you be so insulting?

[Kelsy]

Hears voices arguing fading into the distance as she walks away.

Transition is all about me (or you if you're you). I didn't wake up one day and say "gee I really think I ought to join one of the least understood sexual minorities in existence." No, instead life became so unbearable I was willing to end it. Transition was a last ditch effort at life, the rest is icing.

Politicize your life if you wish just don't drag me into it. The "trans community" lives in the same place that unicorns and fairies live.

Social transition is a one heart and mind at a time kinda "war". Just live your life and be good people, don't "trans" people to death and they will soon see that you're basically the same person just nicer:heehee:

For those of you who have young boys you will know what I'm talking about,
Sensi Woo says the best way to defeat your enemy is to make them your friend

I arrived late at this BBQ but after reading your post April I said to myself " This says it all"

Kels

[Kathryn Martin]

AT least you could stop referring to non-ops as nut cases, or men, and stop using the pronoun "he" when they do identify as females, and stop blaming them for the post-op TSs who leave the community and go stealth. You can disagree with their political views, but must you be so insulting?

One of the easiest ways to discredit others is calling them crazy, or in this case nut cases. The intention is to do two things, firstly invalidate anything the so called "nut case" has to say, and secondly to divert from the actual real issues that require discussion. One of the reasons that persons with mental illness cannot have a voice in our society and have been struggling so hard to find their voice is that whatever they have to say is from the outset discredited. Calling someone crazy robs them of their voice. This is what is being done here and is really not acceptable. There are real issues that need to be resolved.

By the way that quote from Wpath is amazing. It is of general applicability to every member of society.

I think this is a very good thread and if we can keep it about the issues, we all might learn something.

[LeaP]

Non-ops for me are persons who prefer to maintain male genitals while presenting as female for instance. ... Keeping your sex at birth status because you prefer to do so (and not for medical reasons) is clearly a statement of fact.

Again the operative concept is "closest approximation". ...

I am not sure that there really needs to be a gender marker on official documents at all. Considering that from the day of my birth, someone looked at my crotch to determine who I, was reveals a patriarchal, privileged male dominated approach to all things gender. These things were conceived as part of the social contract at a time when no one but male property owners had the right to vote. If you didn't have a penis you were a chattel. Understanding the abhorrence against persons who wanted to have theirs removed gives you a historical context to what we are fighting against every day of our lives. It is a male dominated social contract, but no real marker of identity. The argument in the Ontario case that generated these threads went that gender markers are part of "foundation documents to determine identity". Nowhere is this more apparent than with intersex persons. In their case, there is no identifying relationship between sex and identity. So for "social and emotional concerns" some idiot will decide who they are, based on which of their reproductive organ systems is more prominent.

...
Do we rally need "designations?

This is helpful. There are 3 concepts here: desire, social utility, and identification means.

I understand the desire distinction you make. I tend to agree that for some motives it is definitive. Not so for others. Surgical fear, perhaps. Maybe indifference because the individual sees other characteristics as definitive - but who is to say who is right? The real problem here is that you can't construct a rational bureaucratic process around desire.

Your cite of historical utility is true, but one can fairly ask the modern utility of identification using characteristics like gender markers. The easiest answer is that gender neatly bisects the population and actually fits 99% of the population. Combine that with other characteristics (e.g., hair, eyes, height, weight, etc.) and even with the problems inherent in any one of them, you have a system usable for a myriad of purposes, from voting to prescriptions to permits to such things as building access - whatever. Mistakes occur, but the system basically works.

The system, however, is non-technological. To some extent we are having a debate on a topic that will be irrelevant in a few years. The goal in any identity system is to associate an individual with a permission (construed positively or negatively). A system based on only superficial visual characteristics might work well enough, but is easily exceeded in accuracy by better, biometric approaches. Biometrics, in reducing the identity possibilities to essentially one, make population-based approaches like characteristic lists irrelevant. Identity questions change from "are you reasonably who you claim, based on this list of characteristics", to "you are permissioned (or not)". In other words, identity itself is no longer the issue! In turn, that brings rights issues to the fore where they belong.

So, do we need gender markers? Soon, not for identity. Whether or not such things will be associated with individuals will depend on their utility for other purposes.

Lea

[Kaitlyn Michele]

Whenever the word "rights" is used, for there to be any meaning, you must be specific..

Self identification is our apparent holy grail, but the idea of "What does that get you in life" is different for each of us..both in our own inner dialogue and in our day to day life..(they are not independent)
it matters..

calling any ts person a "separatist" ignores that persons "right" to be different than you..

saying a "separatist" is hurting your rights ignores the fact that YOU are hurting the "rights" of the separatist....after all, if i insist that my srs was neccessary for me survive because i am transsexual, and you say , nope, i am transsexual too and i didn't need srs to survive, then you have pulled the rug out from under me.

Our interests are not aligned.. and so it is on each of us to try to convince the other...

It's really really interesting that the person that started all this in the other thread commented that to her being a "transition separatist" was ok with her...how convenient..

The only way to communicate effectively about this is to be specific
..comparing "separatists" to the evil psychologists and religious haters is just as worthless as using terms like nutjob and crazy... it serves no purpose and we cannot benefit from a conversation like that..

and the conversation is inherently complicated and difficult, even for us! imagine a person reading all this for the first time.= (ie most people).

...as lea alludes to, we must communicate based on our characteristics..if you are not obviously one gender or another, you have a complicated life...
people that have transitioned, got surgery, got their marker, got their birth records changed no long have this difficulty..in fact, talking about it outside of support forums and therapy groups is boring and unneccessary, thinking of myself as a transgendered person seems wrong...... its a transcendent thing that frankly came unexpected...

i say feed the poor, and i bet so do you...and yet we may vehemently disagree on what the best way to do it is..and if we are both poor, who should step aside so the other can eat first??

[Badtranny]

AT least you could stop referring to non-ops as nut cases, or men, and stop using the pronoun "he" when they do identify as females, and stop blaming them for the post-op TSs who leave the community and go stealth. You can disagree with their political views, but must you be so insulting?

Thanks RD but speaking as a potential non-op and very likely one of the nut cases she's referring to; I don't mind at all. She is entitled to her opinion and as Kaitlyn said sooooo eloquently, we all have our own measure of what's important. I totally understand the value of SRS to some people and I would never suggest that it was merely cosmetic or in any way optional for some of my sisters. Personally I will admit that my fear of the surgery trumps my rather mild desire for it. I've said before that I came to terms with my extra appendage when I was very young and since then have not been bothered by it. I did have some rather serious body issues, that were VERY important to me that I deal with but the pickle does not make me feel masculine. I may someday go ahead and finish this thing, but I'm not compelled and my therapist said it wasn't worth the risk if I didn't HAVE to do it. I think she's right. We all have our priorities and for me, my face and body were the main strain.

My physical status is a personal choice even if my TS status is not. People will either understand or they won't but in a few more weeks I will be a legal female so the opinions of other trans people are interesting and sometimes informative, but they have zero influence on my life and decisions.

[RachelOKC]

Thanks RD but speaking as a potential non-op and very likely one of the nut cases she's referring to; I don't mind at all. She is entitled to her opinion and as Kaitlyn said sooooo eloquently, we all have our own measure of what's important. I totally understand the value of SRS to some people and I would never suggest that it was merely cosmetic or in any way optional for some of my sisters. Personally I will admit that my fear of the surgery trumps my rather mild desire for it. I've said before that I came to terms with my extra appendage when I was very young and since then have not been bothered by it. I did have some rather serious body issues, that were VERY important to me that I deal with but the pickle does not make me feel masculine. I may someday go ahead and finish this thing, but I'm not compelled and my therapist said it wasn't worth the risk if I didn't HAVE to do it. I think she's right. We all have our priorities and for me, my face and body were the main strain.

My physical status is a personal choice even if my TS status is not. People will either understand or they won't but in a few more weeks I will be a legal female so the opinions of other trans people are interesting and sometimes informative, but they have zero influence on my life and decisions.

Well said, friend. If someone -even someone within the trans community - wants to think less of me and belittle me because I don't think and act the same, then let them. I won't be made to fear and I won't be made to feel shame. Spent far too long in all that already.

[ReineD]

Thanks RD but speaking as a potential non-op and very likely one of the nut cases she's referring to; I don't mind at all. She is entitled to her opinion and as Kaitlyn said sooooo eloquently, we all have our own measure of what's important. I totally understand the value of SRS to some people and I would never suggest that it was merely cosmetic or in any way optional for some of my sisters.

I'm not saying that SRS isn't important to the TSs who have gone through it and I understand why they see themselves differently from those who haven't. They've made a commitment that is HUGE.

But, this doesn't give anyone the green light to be downright insulting and inflammatory in a way that is hidden behind "opinion". Surely transitioned TSs can voice their opinions without doing this, and without calling full-time non-op TSs male nut cases?

What would it be like if we had an outspoken member who repeatedly (almost in every post), year after year, came in here and said that no matter what transitioners do, it makes no difference because their surgeries are cosmetic only, they are still male no matter how hard they try to be women, because they can't have babies, and further they are nut cases for believing themselves to be women? Over and over again, always using the pronoun "he"? And what if a few respected members of this forum agreed with this person? I don't think it would go down all that well.

You and some of our members here are confident in yourselves and you can allow Kate's comments to roll off your backs, but we do have other members who are bothered by the disrespect. They contact me instead and ask that I delete Kate's posts. I won't do this since Kate isn't breaking any forum rules outright, but I can appeal to a sense of decorum and respect in a public forum.

EDIT
To those of you who are assiduously keeping your discussion to the legal and social aspects of the topic, I apologize for taking this a bit off track by addressing behavioral issues. But I just had to say it. Hopefully it will make a difference.

[Katesback]

Well if someone were to say that no matter what one does they are always Male I can only say I did everything I could to not be male and if I still dont meet thier opinion for whatever reason then oh well such is life.

I have said it before and that is one has to have a thick skin if they are going to transition and if something someone on the internet says bothers ya then you probably need to think about things a bit, because the big bad world can be ever worse than anything I have ever said.

Theres only been one time I was ever bothered by what someone said here and that was when they said it sould be ok to get a female birth certificate prior to SRS. That did bother me. Its like they want something for nothing. Ya got to earn it otherwise its not worth a crap. Its like a slap across the face to those that have paid the price for the right to get the correct birth certificate.

Katie

[ReineD]

Kate, like I said, you're entitled to your feelings and your opinions. But you don't need to be insulting.

I will be editing your comments in the future and I will be snipping out words like "nut cases" if you don't stop. And if you keep it up, you'll be receiving infractions. Enough infractions can lead to a ban.

As much as it is your requirement that everyone here should have a thick skin, they don't always. Take this as a fair warning.

[LeaP]

Theres only been one time I was ever bothered by what someone said here and that was when they said it sould be ok to get a female birth certificate prior to SRS. That did bother me. Its like they want something for nothing. Ya got to earn it otherwise its not worth a crap. Its like a slap across the face to those that have paid the price for the right to get the correct birth certificate.

There may or may not be good reason to limit birth certificate gender marker amendment to post-ops. I haven't made up my mind on that. But "earning it" isn't a reason to which I'd give the time of day. The only requirement for a birth certificate is live birth itself. GGs don't "earn" their BCs.

[Badtranny]

Its like a slap across the face to those that have paid the price for the right to get the correct birth certificate.

Aaahhhh to the root we have arrived, yes?

A gender designation isn't a credential that requires a prescribed number of hours before it can be "earned". My birth certificate will be changed along with everything else because there is a little check box on the court paperwork. There are criteria that need to be met before I can get the Judge's blessing but SRS is not one of them. Is that my fault? It simply isn't necessary in my wonderful home state of California, and frankly I would be crazy to not take advantage of every little opportunity the "system" allows me. It's inconceivable that I would meet a local TS who is NOT changing her gender markers until she undergoes SRS out of some misplaced sense of wanting to earn it.

If my birth certificate feels like a slap in your face, than you should really do some soul searching. It's kinda like you're saying; "Doh! NOW they tell me."

[Melody Moore]

Theres only been one time I was ever bothered by what someone said here and that was when they said it sould be ok to get a female birth certificate prior to SRS. That did bother me. Its like they want something for nothing. Ya got to earn it otherwise its not worth a crap. Its like a slap across the face to those that have paid the price for the right to get the correct birth certificate.

I have to agree with you Melissa about what you said about this comment from Kate.

This is especially a problem I have noted coming from older members of the transsexual
community who had to earned their wings under ultra-conservative gatekeepers and who
believe that any different path to transition or gender expression is wrong.

But then the TG Borg want a more informed consent model that places doctors under
severe legal implications if they do so. And the more this agenda is pushed the more
reluctant the doctors will be to deal with us because of how many times they have been
sued. It is the litigation cases that have forced gender centres to introduced a much more
conservative approach to gender transition that makes it harder for everyone to transition.

These are some of problems we are trying to tackle right now in Australia
because it has completely splintered and fractured the entire trans community.

I can see both sides of the dispute between the TS separatists and also the transgender borg
with both sides refusing to give and inch. Personally I want no part of this interpersonal political
dispute but right now I am right in the thick of it here in Australia trying to play mediator since
I founded a new national trans health action group called TransCare Australia.

I have come under fire from the borg who made accusations that our agenda with healthcare was
exclusive of anyone who wasn't a transsexual. This is a load of crap. Many different people in the
trans community have issues relating to their gender identity or expression and have health issues
that relate to the stigma they have to deal with in society.

But there is hope on the horizon because the TG borg is starting to more about the health & well being
of the trans community rather than focusing on legal rights and other interpersonal political issues like
they so often do. Hopefully both sides will benefit from my groups research to understand what we do
have in common with each other and what are the most important health issues that need to be addressed.

All the fighting in bickering, personal attacks & smeer campaigns etc only weakens our agenda,
and it does nothing to strengthen either side's campaign. So I want to know when some people
here are going to stop acting like children and decide to become an adult?

[Kaitlyn Michele]

All this is starting to make me think i should get working on having my birth certificate changed

[Pink Person]

I like to think that our similarities are more important than our differences.

What makes us similar? In short, we are not cisgender and can't become cisgender. We can (be) become more masculine or less masculine, or more feminine or less feminine. We can (be) become more male or less male, or more female or less female. We can even transition from one sex and gender type to another. The thing we are not and cannot become is cisgender. This is the very significant tie that binds us whether we like it or not.

P.S. Try liking it. It really isn't so bad as some people report.

[Bree-asaurus]

All this is starting to make me think i should get working on having my birth certificate changed

Yeah... it's like... when do you ever need to use the thing anyway?

Thankfully mine's in California... and despite some people thinking I shouldn't get it changed without SRS (because it's just NOT FAIR), apparently CA law will let me :D

[Sammy777]

I was very clearly talking about pre op or non op males wanting to get thier birth certificate changed prior to surgery.

I still am in awe that there are nut cases that think it is acceptable to change thier birth certificate to female while they have testicles.

Sorry nut cases but I and the rest of society wont accept your push for such stupid changes.

Ya want a passport and drivers license that says female thats fine.
Totally cool. Thats all you need.

A birth certificate though is absurd.

Its like they want something for nothing. Ya got to earn it otherwise its not worth a crap.

Its like a slap across the face to those that have paid the price for the right to get the correct birth certificate.

What I find sad is how you, TS' & Inter-sexed "extremists" and certain Quacks in the medical field all seem to share one thing in common.

Being Male / MtF excentric in your thinking, as if FtM's just simply do not exist.

1) Where do FtM's fit into your neat little "No Surgery = No Birth Cert" line of thinking?

FtM SRS is quite frankly still in the stone age compared to the MtF equivalent.
Causing more then a few Males to choose to not have it done.
Are they any less of a man because they choose not to have shitty surgery done?

Should these Males be forced to live with an F on their Birth Cert until such time the results of FtM SRS is on par with the MtF equivalent?

You can't deny it to one side and not the other side, or can you?

2) So a drivers license and passport - everyday used items of ID are OK to you.
But something most people will never see, a Birth Cert is ABSURD?

Why the big hang up on a B/C? Why draw the line there?
Hell maybe you should have to drop trou at the local DMV.
Wouldn't want any "fake" "nut job" ladies getting a free ride there either? Right?

Hell, I have an idea!
Why not revoke all of it. No D/L, PP, B/C, even name changes until after SRS.
Just to be sure those nut jobs and fakes out there don't get anything they don't deserve. Right? Got to keep the barbarians at the gate don't we?

3) Because SRS is the end all, be all to being a woman right?
Because you will always be a man if you got bob and the twins.

So SRS = Woman, and nothing less will do, right?

So even if a MtF "puts the cart in front of the mule" and gets SRS before anything else she is now a Woman. Right?

So, She can walk around with a 5 O'clock shadow, a body full of man hair and/or be flat chested, walk, talk, act, speak like a man, ect, ect. and still call herself a woman because none of that other stuff really matters. Does it?

Because according to you - all that matters is that she had SRS correct?
Now who is being an "absurd" "nut job"?

My point: There is more to being a Woman [or a Man for FtM's] then just SRS.

So according to that [again -flawed] argument I guess FtM's can and never will be seen as Men because they just can not currently get a proper set thru SRS?
Oh my, there goes those pesky FtM's screwing up the works again.

4) News Flash sweety - this "rest of society" you speak of and try to align yourself with sadly think ANY changes of ANY kind are ABSURD and that ALL of US. Non-op, Pre-op and Post-op TS' are all "Nut Jobs" "Freaks" and "Fakes".
And would like nothing better then to turn the bible thumping clock back to 1950.

[AllieSF]

Well written Sammy. Keep it coming. What is absurd to one may be totally acceptable to another. The mature and comfortable in their skin ones don't need to make there point so drastically all the damn time. We know where some people stand from their posts from a long time ago, "I only come here for the fun." I really think someone needs that fun more than they want to admit it. This is a support site and we are ready to help when asked.

[Katesback]

Sammy I dont believe I said that there was not other things to being a woman besides getting SRS. What is scarry is someone with a female birth certificate that can be a father because there are testicles between thier legs. Even scarrier is someone that is an activist out there fighting for legislation to change the birth certificates to allow this. I realize it is human nature to want more and more. I also realize that hard fought for rights can be taken away and I can just see legislators saying enough when this comes up.

As far as needing my birth certificate. Funny someone asked that because yesterday I needed both of them as well as my surgery letter and my name change order. Why? Well I had one final piece of paper I needed to get changed and that was with the Federal Aviation Administration. So after years of getting SRS I went to the office with the most warped sense of humor I could muster knowing I was going to have to show linkage to the old me. The guy was cool, he comparred the old and the new birth certificates, and other things. Why did I need to furnish the birth certificates? Well for a gender change the damm FAA says the surgery letter has to have my name and address on it. My address is not on the letter so I brought further data to back up who I claimed to be.

It appears the federal government does not allow people with testicles to use female! Hmmmm I wonder why that is?

Thankfully this is the last time I will need to do this. I have some savings bonds in my old name so I perhaps I will have to do it again one more time but god its nice to be done for the most part.

PS. Sammy to answer your question about F to M. Considering the surgeries available I dont blame them for not getting bottom surgery. As I have said before you do what you can and thats all you can do. If they have ovaries and can be a mother then they are still female on thier birth certificate as far as I am concerned. Hope that clarifies my stance.

[Aprilrain]

It appears the federal government does not allow people with testicles to use female! Hmmmm I wonder why that is?


not true Kate, my medical and pilot certificate both indicate female. all it took was a PROPER letter from a therapist NOT a BC

[Melody Moore]

It appears the federal government does not allow people with testicles to use female! Hmmmm I wonder why that is?

You really are ignorant with blinkers on Kate and see things in your own idealistic way. Who the hell are you to judge?

April posted a very valid point and also the federal government here in Australia allows us to be recognised now
on our passports as females without SRS. Laws are changing every day, so hollar and scream all you like because
it won't change the tide of trans* health & well being and legal reforms that are sweeping the world right now.

So I suggested you get with the 21st century & read the WPATH Standards of Care & give up your prehistoric agenda.

[Shelly Preston]

Sometimes people can not have surgery for medical reasons yet present as a female all the time. Having to present a male birth certificate can leave them open to discrimination.



PS. Sammy to answer your question about F to M. Considering the surgeries available I dont blame them for not getting bottom surgery. As I have said before you do what you can and thats all you can do. If they have ovaries and can be a mother then they are still female on thier birth certificate as far as I am concerned. Hope that clarifies my stance.


Kate I understand your stance from the quote above but I have a question

If I am brought up as a male and I later decide I want to obtain a birth certificate as female

if I have a penis and ovaries where would this leave me in your opinion

[Katesback]

Well Meoldy I actually sent you a private letter you never did answer. I had asked you to educate me about this intersex thing. As I said you didnt respond to the letter so I guess I dont get to be educated about this intersex thing.

I was clear about explaining why I showed my birth certificate April. My doctors SRS letter does not have my address on it. You can research the specifics on the FAA website. It says you need your address on the SRS letter.

Here is the link http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/name_change/

[Melody Moore]

My doctors SRS letter does not have my address on it. You can research the specifics on the FAA website. It says you need your address on the SRS letter.

Kate, I can't be bothered with you seriously.

As for what you just claimed about the FAA, thanks for proving that you don't pay attention to detail.


Gender Change

To obtain a new airman certificate that reflects a gender change, you must appear at an FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO) for positive identification You must present one or both of the following documents to an FAA Inspector:


A court order issued by a court of the United States or its territories stating that you have changed your gender


A statement from a physician or clinical psychologist treating you that contains:

Your identification by name and address
Verification that you are undergoing treatment that has altered or will alter your gender



In many states in the USA and also in Australia you can be legally identified as a female on
your drivers licence by producing a gender identity certificate by your doctor or by court order.

You don't need the SRS letter for the FAA, you only need to be undergoing treatment. SRS is not
a requirement of both of two options they offer. You can always ask a doctor to add your address
information to a gender identity certificate, or a drivers licence so that is not a big hurdle.

[Katesback]

Hmmm ok. Well thanks for taking your precious time to actually be bothered with me. Rather interesting. Thinking its about time to get going to a derby game I have to run some chicks over or get run over.

If you ever get the precious time I would love to know more about this intersex thing. As I recall you said you were more worthy of female than perhaps me. My response to you was to inquire as to showing and educating what this intersex thing is. I suppose anyone can say they are intersex now cant they? Come to think of it I wanted to ask that one girl Chloe that got stung by a bee and then turned trans about the whole thing but I doubt she would be able to furnish any useful information. Perhaps you can.

As said to you I have NEVER seen any documents from anyone claiming to be intersex that shows how they are intersex. Since you have told people you are you must have documents. Could you educate us and scan them so that we can see them and learn from them? Please?

[Sammy777]

but damm it you got testicles and can be a father you got no right to be called FEMALE on your birth certificate!!!!
You dont deserve the status of female on your birth certificate!!!!!!!!!!

What is scarry is someone with a female birth certificate that can be a father because there are testicles between thier legs.

to answer your question about F to M. If they have ovaries and can be a mother then they are still female on thier birth certificate as far as I am concerned.
I find it interesting how you tie the ability to reproduce to gender.
That is a VERY slippery slope you're looking down.
There are plenty of GG and GM that can not reproduce.
Are they any less of a Woman or a Man because of that?

If like you say being able to reproduce should preclude you from gender changes on a B/C shouldn't the inability to reproduce not also then be included?

Shouldn't FtM's then be able to get an M after just a hysterectomy?
Due to the poor results of current FtM SRS surgery?

If that is true then shouldn't MtF's be able to get an F after just an orchiectomy?
Regardless of the superior quality of current MtF SRS surgery.

After all, in both cases the reproductive ability has been removed.
SRS should not need be a precursor to changing ones gender on a B/C.

As I stated, a very slippery slope indeed seeing as you can not give one side a break and not the other. That would just not be fair.


It appears the federal government does not allow people with testicles to use female! Hmmmm I wonder why that is?

The Federal Government DOES in fact allow "people with testicles" to use Female.
A passport is a FEDERALLY issued and regulated document.
And as of 2010 [and updated again in 2011] the Fed allows a "transgender person" to update their passport to "reflect his or her current gender". WITHOUT the need for SRS.

Here is link in case you wanted to read it: http://transequality.org/Resources/passports_2012.pdf

There are also many states [State Governments] that allow gender changes to be made to one's drivers license. Again WITHOUT the need for SRS.

So tell me Kate, which government where you referring to again?


When I see people that say that somone that has testicles and fits the exact definition of MALE is fighting to get some right to change thier birth certificate to FEMALE I think they are nuts!
Can you explain for the group, just what does:
"somone that has testicles and fits the exact definition of MALE" Mean?

Finally, I'm a bit OCD with grammar/spelling. So with that I just wanted to point out that the correct spelling is [U]Their and not Thier. :) Thanks, Sammy. :battingeyelashes:

[Sammy777]

Separatism as it relates to the plight of the TS and IS communities is needed at this time.

Transitioning and transitioned TS and IS people do not need their lives complicated further by aligning with pan sexuals, cross dressing fetishists or fantasy dressers....

We don't switch genders constantly like Pansexuals causing confusion to the general public.
We don't dress as someone of the opposite sex, masturbate then discard clothing.
Yet this permeates the public's perception off what Transsexuality and Intersexuality is.

Many of us educate to correct the public's mistake.



If you are going to get on a soap box and look down on anybody not exactly like you while simultaneously "educating the public" at least get your facts straight!!

Definition of Pansexual:
1.Psychiatry . pertaining to the theory that all human behavior is based on sexuality.
2.Also, omnisexual. expressing or involving sexuality in many different forms or with a variety of sexual outlets.

Definition of Pansexuality:
Refers to the potential for sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction towards persons of all gender identities and biological sexes.
Also referred to as Omnisexuality.

Pansexuality is akin to, but differs slightly from Bisexuality.
both describe one's SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The same way as Straight, Lesbian or Gay also do.

Pansexuality has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with gender Identity, gender presentation or a lack thereof.

[Kathryn Martin]

It is quite astonishing that you believe that this kind of discourse is useful. There are real issues here and I am not sure this is helpful. And by the way "poorly misinformed" double negative? Hmmmm....

[Sammy777]

It is quite astonishing that you believe that this kind of discourse is useful.
There are real issues here and I am not sure this is helpful.
And by the way "poorly misinformed" double negative? Hmmmm....

Hello Kathryn.
You are correct. After re-reading my post I have to agree that my last statement was a bit grammatically "iffy" at best. So I changed it. Thank You :)

True! There are issues here.
And I would like to think and hope that I'm not the only one with this issue.

One of those issues is someone who touts themselves as a voice of TS/IS's.
Who has obvious utter disdain for anyone who isn't a TS or IS person.
Who is unable to properly distinguish gender identity from sexual orientation.
Who claims to be or has the desire to be properly educating the general public.
Who does not have those facts correct when doing so.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

[ReineD]

Well, all good things come to an end.

Although the discussion was productive, this thread has now turned into a vehicle for sarcasm and contention. Sammy, really next time do try to make your point without being quite so abrasive.

Thread closed.