What Qualifies a person to 'Represent' the Transgender Community ?

[Kelly DeWinter]

After watching the First 4 episodes of "I am Cait" AND another Facebook 'Friend" toss their hat into the ring because of a personal crisis that may or may not be true, I have to wonder what makes someone qualified to represent the Transgender Community.

It's clear that Caitlyn Jenner does not consider herself part of the community, referring to the community as "they","them","you,"and"your" instead of "we","us" and"our", yet there are people who are pushing to have her 'represent' the views and positions of the TG Community. 4 Episodes in, and she shows clearly that she knows very little of the TG Community.

As for the occasional Facebook self appointed prophets of Transgenderisim, usually they have a personal crisis that leads to them being outed,clocked,or terminated from work. They then take to Social Media and wrap themselves in TG "Social Media" activism, and create social funding accounts to raise funds for personal use.

With plenty of celebrity TG members who are part of the community such as:
Renée Richards
Janet Mock
Kye Allums
Sylvia Rivera
Laverne Cox
Carmen Carrera
Chaz Bono
Diego Sanchez

Do we need self appointed representatives ?

Within this forum there are plenty of strong voices within the community including moderators and members who would make excellent representatives.

What do you consider qualifies someone to represent your voice on transgender issues ?

[I Am Paula]

You seem to break your post into two parts, and I will too.
Caitlyn Jenner, love her or otherwise, is still just a character on a 'reality' show. EVERYBODY knows 'reality' shows are entirely scripted. I Am Cate is nothing but a spin-off of the Kardashians shows. We haven't yet actually heard from Cate, only the writers three floors down, who are all Cis. When Cait said she wanted to do right by the community, she was reading off a teleprompter, as everything said on the show is very carefully filtered to either not offend, or to promote her network.
Until Cate is completely separated from her network, and those toxic Kardashians, her contract finished, and she joins the real world, we will have to assume her life is about shopping in stores we can't afford, and yet another tearful reunion with her ex. I would love to spend three hours in wardrobe, and makeup every day, but that is not 'reality'.
I do not dislike Cate. Just by her celebrity, she is gaining notice from people who may never have heard the word transgender before. This is a good thing. Remember, for now, she is a television actress first, and trans second.

Who is right to be an activist, and advocate? Any trans woman can help.
Some women, particularly younger ones who can pull off stealth, and just disappear into the cis community, choose not to be active, as this, by definition, outs them. Others, myself included, have histories that are well known. I can offer advice to young women just coming to grips with their new reality, I'm speaking at Transgender Day of Rememberance, and I go to monthly meetings where newcomers, just venturing out in the real world, can get guidance from somebody who has been there. It's not much. I don't have hours, or a hotline. I just make myself available to those I can. Every little bit helps. I truly admire the like of Janet Mock, Laverne Cox et al, and I'm glad they can use their celebrity for the good of the community, but in some way, anyone who chooses to, can.

[kimdl93]

I don't watch so called reality television, so I have no opinion of Caitlyn Jenner's program. By virtue of coming out so public ally, she has attained the status of representing one dimension of the transgender community, whether she sought that status or not. The same is true for any public transgender person, present or past, factionalized or real. I don't begrudge or envy her or anyone who possesses that possesses that level of notoriety. But I do think, on balance, it's good for us to have many public, human faces. Over time, as more and more positive examples of transgender people become known, I believe that the prejudices and discrimination against us will also diminish.

Of course, each of us living an open transgender life, whether full time or the occasional public outing, also makes a meaningful contribution toward breaking down the attitudinal barriers we face. Every encounter, each conversation is a chance to demonstrate that we are good, contributing members of society.

[Kate T]

As with Kim, I have not seen "I am Cait".

But really. Are we going to sit as judge and jury on who qualifies, who is "tranny" enough to represent our "voice".

What would you have Caitlyn do Kelly?? Hmm?? Tone it down, shop at Macy's with you, film at a pride rally, have dinner at a local restaurant? We already have Facebook for that, in all likelihood if she tones down the drama it would create exceedingly tedious television and people would just switch off. As it is currently, whether it is your cup of tea or not, she is exposing a large number of people just to the concept of transgenderism and transsexualism.

In WW2 the Allies killed many times more civilian Japanese in total than American military service personnel deaths. As Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defence who essentially designed and authorised the campaign against Japanese civilian targets, said though in an interview many years later, you cannot PROVE that it shouldn't have been done that way or that that wasn't the best way. We need to bear that in mind, we can't know whether what Caitlyn is doing is a "good" way or not. We can only judge on whether she truly believes she is helping others. At this stage I have seen no evidence to suggest that she does not genuinely and truly wish to help others, whether I agree with her methods or not. As such I will support her efforts and those of anyone else who is trying to help other people.

[Eryn]

Like it or not, Caitlyn is, and will continue to be the face of transgenderism for the foreseeable future. She has the history, image, and publicity machine that guarantees that.

Sadly, Caitlyn is also somewhat inexperienced. Yes, she's out, looks great, and a wardrobe to kill for. She's also someone who has been very closeted until just recently. There are a lot of gaps in her knowledge that need to be filled, and she won't fill them by restricting herself to events orchestrated by her production company. She really won't progress until she does some living in the real world

The LGBT political community dearly wants a piece her popularity, but they also have issues with her politics. She spends a lot of time getting lectured about that, and about the minor semantics of "their" versus "our" community. If those hard-core LGBT folks think about it a bit they will realize that the reluctance they sense in acknowledging being part of the community is simply a manifestation of being long-closeted. Caitlyn may not consider herself to be ready or worthy of full membership in the community.

I think along the same lines. While I fully support the SoCal LGBT community, I don't spend a lot of time within it. I don't hang out much at the LGBT center or in LGBT-friendly areas like WeHo. That leads me to sometimes think of myself as being somewhat outside the community even though I am, by definition, a part of it.

If someone wants to learn about the TG community, I tell them to watch Becoming Us. It isn't completely accurate either, but the people and situations are three-dimensional and the viewer actually ends up caring about what happens to them.

[Zooey]

Within this forum there are plenty of strong voices within the community including moderators and members who would make excellent representatives.

What do you consider qualifies someone to represent your voice on transgender issues ?

Hmm, well at minimum, I would say somebody who wants to be a representative or have an opinion on what makes a good one needs to be living their life authentically and publicly, and they need to have an understanding of and RESPECT for the issues that trans* individuals face.

For example, oh... I dunno... I would expect such a person to understand the importance and actual reality of trans* folks' access to and usage of appropriate gender facilities (restrooms, etc), and advocate for our rights (rather than a return to separate-but-equal) without falling prey to the usual misinformation and fear-based arguments. :rolleyes:

[Persephone]

Caitlyn Jenner has every right to be herself, just as we all do. Frankly, here and elsewhere, I find an awful lot of jealousy in the TG/TS commmunity over her "advantages." Yes, she has a great deal more notariety and a bit more money than most of us, but she is going through the same struggles and the same pain that any of the rest of us are going through for the simple reason that all transitions are personal, all involve family, and love, and hurt, and hers is no exception.

Yes, she also has a very public transition, and that affects her in ways most of us will never know, but most of that boils down to one of the same problems we all have, staying employed. Other than her job, her income, why should she give a fig about the public?

When I watch "I Am Cait," or find out more about her from other sources, I see what I see about many of us when we make those first tentative steps outside of our cozy closet. She has done what many cannot do, she has faced her fears and stepped out, but in many ways she is still naive, still new at being transgendered and being a woman.

Eryn and I have helped some others to take those first steps. Some of those folks are members of this forum. Frankly, I wish we could do the same for Cait, to reassure her and help her grow in ways that her sycophantic "buddies" on the show never will.

Hugs,
Persephone.

[becky77]

I think it's impossible for one person to represent the whole Transgender umbrella.

If I was to stand up and be a representative, I only really know what it is to be TS, how can I speak for the others?
With the best of intentions I would still be biased to my own perspective, which is limited to being TS.

There's a few crossdressers out there, Eddie Izzard, Grayson Perry.

The big issue is that there is hardly anyone representing the people in the middle, and until those people step into the limelight, they are only represented by people like Caitlyn and Kelly Malone who are TS.
It's unfair to blame them for only portraying their own experience, because that's all they can portray.

It would be worse if they did assume to speak for everyone and then get it totally wrong.

[donnalee]

It's more a matter of notoriety than anything else, but I believe her exposure will be more helpful than not.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

But really. Are we going to sit as judge and jury on who qualifies, who is "tranny" enough to represent our "voice".

.

i completely agree.

[PretzelGirl]

I think all voices are valid and needed. We can't select as the person's exposure to others is the selecting factor. So we have those on the national stage that you and others have mentioned and there are names being mentioned that I have never heard of. That tells me that some of this is relative to you location and/or experiences. Having a direct voice is tough as it is a highly stealth group, so there are few out there to be the educators. Those that identify with some level of fluidity are now starting to get more exposure and we are seeing that with people like Ruby Rose. Some of this will take time as the entire LGBT spectrum of identities didn't come out at once and the different transgender identities won't either. It is progressive education.

Locally, you will probably find it becomes a matter of "who can". Some choose or need to be stealth. Others are worn down by dealing with discriminations and marginalization all day that they have nothing left to give through advocacy. So your local representatives become those that have the time, energy, desire to do this. As others have said above, having clear and consistent messages is a tough thing to achieve. I see that at the local level too. Sometimes it is all about who speaks up the most...human nature.

But we are relatively small in numbers. Given that and that many don't have the time or energy to be advocates, it becomes difficult to be selective and there is a whole argument about whether we should be selective. We are a diverse group.

[Frances]

Time. I am really tired of seeing people who started transitioning 15 minutes ago or had surgery yesterday step up to the mike. Live the role for a good while (SRS or not, I don't care about genitals), write a book or blog with followers, and if you still need to "be the voice of the community," do it.

Donna Rose, Jenny Boylan, Calpernia Adams, Julia Serano, etc., NOT Caitlyn Jenner.

[Kimberly Kael]

Nobody is qualified to speak for the community, but certainly everyone with any experience is entitled to speak about their experience and observations. We should just call them out any time they try to make a statement on behalf of the rest of us. I haven't watched I Am Cait but I have been pleasantly surprised at how she seems to have tired to learn from those who have gone before.

As for her not speaking on the subject until she gets some perspective? That's an interesting form of privilege: the luxury of remaining relatively unknown. She doesn't have that option and I know few here are likely to empathize with what that means, but surely you remember the paparazzi and tabloid speculation prior to her coming out? She had a choice between more of that and taking control of the message. I think her decision has been a net positive.

[LeaP]

Wouldn't you have to have a community first?

[Nigella]

The best person to represent the TG community is everyone who is prepared to face the public, stand up and be counted.

[Starling]

Though I take a risk by speaking for the entire "community," I feel confident in saying we don't actually know how long Caitlyn had been seriously contemplating transition, how she prepared herself for it, what kind of counseling she received, how long she was on hormones, whether or not she was on one of the many online forums, whether she knew other transitioners, or any other aspect of her situation. We do know, from statements of friends, that there had always been "something" about her from an early age.

So it's presumptuous to say that she's a Jenner-come-lately to this world. Of course, the media management her people do helps foster that presumption; but as others here have pointed out, her high profile precluded any kind of gradual easing into full time. For instance, I'd never seen her in any photos wearing makeup or women's clothing. I think it's clear her timeline is a little muddy, though, because a hell of a lot changed in the relatively brief period between the Diane Sawyer interview and the Vanity Fair cover story.

As far as her politics are concerned, I think it's important to embrace and spread the truth that gender difference is something that happens to people of all sorts, and in every conceivable walk of life. And that's a very good thing.

:) Lallie

[Eryn]

...Donna Rose, Jenny Boylan, Calpernia Adams, Julia Serano, etc., NOT Caitlyn Jenner.

Fine, but what if these people call a news conference? Who will have reporters fighting to get into the room?

To "represent a community" broadly, a person needs an audience and Caitlyn has one. That's why the LGBT activists are flocking around her.


The best person to represent the TG community is everyone who is prepared to face the public, stand up and be counted.

Ultimately, it is every one of us, regardless of our degree of "outness." Even a totally closeted CDer represents the TS community if they discourage a trans-hating conversation or joke.

Another consideration is the nature of the transpeople who would represent us. Some are pleasant, persuasive, and photogenic. Others are coarse, abrasive, and bizarre. If we want to induce the general population to be accepting of us it would make sense for the "faces" of transgenderism to have qualities they admire. Caitlyn, despite all her inexperience with the TG world, is a very admirable person.

[PaulaQ]

I agree with Nigella. All of us who live open and authentic lives are great representatives.

Caitlyn, for better or worse, was able to do something that no other trans person on earth could do. Her fame and her former notoriety as the greatest athlete on earth put her both near the pinnacle of male privilege. Between that, and her television fame, millions of people knew her before transition. Janet Mock, Jenny Boylan and so many others are great representatives. But not a one of them could do what Cait did - we didn't know them before transition, and it's hard to imagine their former lives. With Cait, millions of people got to experience someone coming out, and to see them begin presenting as a female.

There are problematical things about Cait's tale - she has had a very different path than the rest of us. Her story is just not like ours, and her fame and money will shield her from an immense amount of crap the rest of us have to deal with.

But without her, our issues would not get the attention they are now getting.

[Frances]

@Eryn: But I don't like the way CJ reprensents trans people. I didn't like the suffering trope at the espys and I hated the Vanity Fair cover. What's the point of a packed room, if the message reeks? Plus, I don't think there is a "community."

[Rachelakld]

For me, anyone and everyone who has gender issues has the right.
Going outside their homes, they automatically qualify as they are then seen by the rest of the world, be they street side prostitutes or regular girls, Dame Edna or Cait or anyone else

Maybe the better question, is who is the BEST person to represents YOUR version of TG and the image you want to portray to the world - and the best person for that is YOU.

The difference being, and the point of annoyance is - Cait already has the media, and that is where the interest and money is to be made, so she gets the spotlight for now

[Eryn]

@Eryn: But I don't like the way CJ reprensents trans people....

Frances, neither you or I have much of a say on this. Be happy that Caitlyn has the spotlight, not Donna Perry.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

get with it people

i represent all trans people

[Barbara Ella]

Caitlyn represents Caitlyn, and that is all she represents, with the exception that her presence and activities will reflect on the trans community and the public's perception/belief. She provides a forum and a focus point to perhaps educate the unknowing a little more then they otherwise would get from less visible members of our community. I am glad for her, and wish her well in her transition, and look forward to following her education and awakening. She does have a lot to learn.

Barbara

[sarahcsc]

First, we need to define what constitutes the "transgender community".

It is both practical but dangerous to have someone represent the transgender community simply because of its sheer diversity.

I agree that having real life experience living as the opposite gender helps, but it isn't and shouldn't be a prerequisite.

As with most elections, people tend to elect one who is sympathetic to the cause of the majority.

As far as this forum goes, the vast majority of members are crossdressers hence any candidate will have to pander to the needs of crossdressers in order to increase his/her chances to be elected as the representative.

But do we need representation? I don't even think we have a cohesive community.

Lol,
S

[LeaP]

There are no elections, obviously, so there is really no such thing as legitimate representation. There is only credibility. That is no different in the public sphere than it is here. The drivers are experience, breadth, and knowledge.

Speak beyond your experience – no one will listen. … Except those with agendas.

Go overbroad with either notions of community or solutions – no buy in. … Except those who don't really need the solutions.

Insufficient knowledge – wastes everyone's time. There is no "except" for this one…

[Kaitlyn Michele]

right

cd's might ask "can Caitlyn Jenner represent us??" well can an astronaut??

in the end its a one on one thing.... each of YOU get to represent YOURSELF...

other voices and events will influence your opportunities to share info or create challenges because their story gets projected on you but in the end the progress ends up being personal

i have talked to many groups and i always make it very clear that i am just one person and i don't represent anyone,,,,i am one example of one condition (transsexuality)

[mechamoose]

We *all* represent the TG/TS/CD community. I don't want to be defined by celebrities.

We are *all* advocates and representatives of our community, no matter how out or hesitant we are.

- MM

[LeaP]

MM, that's absolutely meaningless.

I will say one thing about Caitlyn Jenner. Despite a very different life and vastly greater resources, I've heard more from her that resonates than from many here. Her social life may not represent mine, but her inner life sure seems to.

[Robin414]

Going Into a MAC store asking for some lip gloss and contouring powder with complete confidence I think represents the community well. I'm sorry if I'm adding to the 'division' between TG and CD but I'm with M. Moose on this one! 😡

[LeaP]

Let me reduce it for you: Everyone represents everyone else. Even if we are completely dissimilar in every possible way. That's an odd notion of representation. Even if you consider representation in the narrower sense of being a constituent member, it only makes sense if the community can be defined - and usually agrees. Neither applies in this case, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

[Stephanie47]

As an in-home cross dresser I only represent to one person that a cross dresser may be someone who is a loving husband, great dad and grandfather. It's a private of my life, and, will remain so.

So, who represents the transgender community? It's not Cait. I've yet to meet anybody who watches the show. I've yet to meet anybody who thinks of her as nothing more than a media event. I did try to watch the show once, and, well..I turned to baseball. I do not watch reality shows.

Who represents the community? Well, my wife has a niece who is transitioning. And, I have a friend whose grandson is struggling with his sexual identity. It's not an easy road for these kids who are bearing the brunt of a unaccepting world. They represent the community. All starlets can isolate themselves and surround themselves with people of their choosing.

[Robin414]

OK, Can we agree to disagree and just be one happy family here?! This place is about ACCEPTANCE right!? So some of us are further down the path than others but we're ALL ON THE SAME PATH right?

[mechamoose]

Let me reduce it for you: Everyone represents everyone else. Even if we are completely dissimilar in every possible way. That's an odd notion of representation. Even if you consider representation in the narrower sense of being a constituent member, it only makes sense if the community can be defined - and usually agrees. Neither applies in this case, wishful thinking notwithstanding.

Huh?

I don't understand.

If I go out to the store in pants and a t-shirt I'm 'bumpless'. I don't appear any different than any other male. If I go there in a skirt, I raise eyebrows.

By my going out in a skirt, I am challenging the 'norm'. I don't care if the only thing you ever do is wear mascara, by doing so you are challenging the 'norm'.

Any one of us who challenges that 'norm' is representing us. It isn't about how famous you are, quite the opposite. We/you/I *need* daily disruptions to that 'norm'.

(Norm, man.. I hate that guy!)

- MM

[LeaP]

LOL! Robin, that's the point. We DO disagree and aren't one big happy family. This place might be accepting, but that's not remotely the same topic.


Huh?

I don't understand.

That's a good comment on representation right there

[edit] oh, I forgot to add that we are not all on the same path. In fact, one of the most common phrases here is that all paths are different and individual.

[Shelly Preston]

Everyone who is out in public represents the community. The exception are those who would never be suspected of starting out in the opposite gender. (unless they chose to make it public)

We all have different experiences which is why its difficult to have just few people represent the community. Caitlyn Jenner has the spotlight due to high profile. We may not agree with what she says but she has brought gender issues in to the spotlight.

[mechamoose]

[edit] oh, I forgot to add that we are not all on the same path. In fact, one of the most common phrases here is that all paths are different and individual.

How are they not? How is anyone's path better or worse than mine?

- MM

[AllieSF]

I am in agreement with the fact that we all represent the larger umbrella community whether we want to andwhether we are qualified or not. Every time that we are out there interacting or even just being seen by the general public we can be identified correctly or not as a member of said community. I actually like that reality since we are so varied in our individual places on the spectrum, or choice of clothing and overall presentation because the general public once introduced to this side of life also needs to realize that we do cover a broad spectrum from one extreme to the other. We do not always make the best representatives in some circumstances where it is common to associate one side with the other when in fact they may be totally different with distinct goals and reasons for being. But that is life, the life we run into every day in all other aspects of life, different personalities, walks of life and individual interests, TG related or not.

Then there needs to be considered what types of representations are we talking about. Just being out interacting with others is one type. Standing up on public platforms talking about part or all of the spectrum is another. Getting a general message out to the masses can be done by a lot of people. Getting a more detailed and issue specific message out probably needs to be done by more accomplished and qualified persons. Are very public figures appropriate when they come from very different backgrounds and experiences when compared to maybe the majority of our members? I think yes if they keep the message general enough to benefit from their celebrity status and are also careful to keep the public aware of where they specifically fit in regarding their own personal circumstances and experience when compared to others. That is where I think that Caitlyn Jenner comes in and finally gets that additional needed public attention to us as a whole and the TS side in particular. Is she perfect? Probably not, but she is much better than nothing or no one.

[Starling]

I'm nowhere near full time yet, but I have given the cis-people I have come out to and socialized with a greater and deeper understanding of what this thing is; and they should react differently from now on to bigotry and stupid jokes. A couple years ago, after I finally came out as a woman to my long-time psychologist, I gave her a copy of She's Not There, introducing it as a story of a childhood and youth that mirrored mine. I was born first, but I've yet to write my story.

Dr. R's understanding is growing. Though she was never a bigot, and she's a super smart and compassionate therapist, she had only an educated layperson's knowledge of gender issues. I see her again this week, with a lot more to tell her.

This may be a bit off-topic, but the pressure inside me is growing to tell all my oldest friends, even if I don't live to complete my transition. These are dear people I've known more than fifty years, and I need to be honest with them. They're bound to find out when I'm gone--if any of them are left standing by then--but I want them to know the core me while we're still alive. I must make them understand my feelings for them were true and deep, even if the persona they think they know is a lie.

:) Lallie

[Rianna Humble]

we're ALL ON THE SAME PATH right?

No tin the slightest. Even in this thread, there are those who are transitioning, those who will never transition, some whose main aim is to end up somewhere in between genders and some whose transition is complete.


we are not all on the same path. In fact, one of the most common phrases here is that all paths are different and individual.

Pretty well spot on.


How are they not? How is anyone's path better or worse than mine?

LeaP's comment is not about the quality of any one path, but on the paths themselves. A transitioner is not on the same path as a closet cross-dresser. The start point is different and so is the end-point. The same could be said of a cross-dresser who is out and someone whose aim is to present themself to the world as both genders or neither.

You don't ask whether the main highway(s) from New York to Washington would be better than the main highway(s) from Berlin to Frankfurt, because there is no point of comparison - they are going between different start and end-points and neither passes via Johannesbourg.

[Nigella]

Would members please refrain from making this thread personal. Anymore toing and froing between individual members will be deleted, if you have personal issues, take it to PM.

Nigella
Moderator

[pamela7]

1. While no one person could represent our spectrum, in a democratic society elected representatives do.
2. every one of us, when out dressed, is representing our demographic in the eyes of observers, whether we like it or not.
3. for qualification watch the wizard of oz; they mean nothing.

[LeaP]

Exactly right, Rianna.

The sense that "represent" is being used by most who continue to insist upon it is being used in the proxy or even symbolic sense. This is close, though not identical, to my previous phrasing of constituent membership. But let's look at the new variations individually.

Representation of the larger umbrella community: There is NO community! There is a sociopolitical, umbrella definition. There is no unitary group with members of common types or characteristics, goals, paths, or identity. The last is particularly important. Communities ARE identity groups FOREMOST. There are no common activities. No common governing organizations. No meetings. Publications. Nothing that characterizes any kind of real community. Yeah, a tiny minority show up at pride events. A tiny minority goes to support groups. (Noting here that the pattern with transsexuals is to disappear from them after a while.)

Symbolic representation, or proxy representation: The concept is that of an individual presenting a kind of type to the general public. It is true that anyone who does not pass might be viewed as "a {insert noun here}." But I have to tell you, it isn't "hey!… a transgender!" Now it just may be "tranny" or even one of the more pejorative terms. The deal is that the general public's perception is mostly one of transsexuals, not crossdressers or gender variant individuals. That is, if there is any proxying going on, it's for a subset - the SMALLEST subset - in the so-called community.

Pure symbolic representation, the type where an individual stands for some package of characteristics – even by implication or association – and even when forced on an unwilling individual - does occur. People who hate all Americans will have that hatred invoked anytime they see any American. Some people see a terrorist in every Muslim. Positive types can occur, too. Someone who evokes a hard-working mother may be seen as a symbol of all good things motherhood. On the flipside of things that are imposed are the things that people claim to represent symbolically. Family values. Patriotism. Racial purity.

Hopefully you get the drift. Symbolic and proxy representation is not representation of anything but someone's agenda.

A more interesting comment was the one on elected representatives representing a spectrum. Interesting phrasing in itself, I might add. As a practical matter, an elected representative represents exactly one version of any issue they care about. If it happens that the position that is near and dear to them conflicts with their reelection, well they just might change their mind. But they don't represent the span of positions in their constituencies in any real fashion. But to call what they do "representation" when they disagree with you is a bad mischaracterization. They don't represent all the individuals in the sense of presenting and advocating their positions. That's nonsensical. They represent their jurisdiction in a general sense, of course, and stand in proxy in that sense. But that's it. Governmental jurisdictions are not communities per se. And voluntary communities are interest groups.

I share no affinity with the larger proportion of the groups and types that fall under the transgender umbrella. There is NO one among those who represents me in any way. I would be willing to entertain the idea of a narrower community with a representative aspect, but it has yet to present itself.

[sarahcsc]

we're ALL ON THE SAME PATH right?

No tin the slightest. Even in this thread, there are those who are transitioning, those who will never transition, some whose main aim is to end up somewhere in between genders and some whose transition is complete.


Yeah, okay.

Say a group of us gathered around for lunch and one's eating lots of carbs to gain weight, one's eating nothing but salads to lose weight, one's eating but saving room for desert, one's eating chocolates to pick herself up after being dumped by her boyfriend, one's a vegetarian because of her individual preferences, and one's having lots of red meat because she was anaemic.

I can see that everybody eats differently and has a different purpose and end points for eating.

But they're all eating. Aren't they?

So they're all on individual paths... but also on the same path. I guess it just depends how you want to see it. :)

Should we focus on our similarities or should we focus on our differences? That is the question, right Rianna?

Love,
S

[Angela Campbell]

Well some are in the restroom, some are at the bar, some are outside smoking, and some didn't even get there yet.

[LeaP]

Sara, here's a similar posiiton to your eating proposition: We are alll trying to get along in life. Wait - that's includes *everyone*! Meaningless.

You ask about focusing on differences. My stress is affinity, but difference is simply a negation of affinity. Same thing, right? You want to focus on similarities, I want to focus on affinity. Both of us want to put aside differences. So why the disjunct? Materialty.

Materiality is in the nature of the problem, the particular solutions,and the resulting life. In the case of a transsexual, that's being cross-sexed (fixed gender identity in opposition to birth physical sex), transition, and integration. If you want to include periodic crossdressing and male identity in the same category ("eating") then I think you have over-generalized.

At what point do you concede that you're trying to co-opt people against their will?

[KellyJameson]

What makes a community? Do all the women in the world make a community ?

For myself to be a part of the "Trans community" could threaten my being "one individual in a sea of individuals called women" and I keep everything trans related at arms length to the best of my abilities because I fear participation would be self limiting.

I understand the power of many voices united to fight for freedom and human diginity and why the concept of community is so powerful. There is also the very much needed sense of inclusion from a life time of feeling excluded for being different and safety in numbers.

Community (a collective in association for a common purpose) "normalizes transgenderism".

Freedom of expression is a part of gender but gender is not a part of freedom of expression, but something greater.

The vastness of gender makes the concept of community impossible to apply to gender in my opinion.

There is a difference between being a man or a woman versus the freedom to move on the gender binary created by and between the two sexes.

I transitioned to become "a sex as one side of a two sided coin" not " a gender as something between these two sides" I already had my gender but was missing the physical vessel to live it in.

I was me but could not become or be me at the same time. Freedom of expression would not and could not have cured this.

For me it is black and white but talk of community serves a different purpose.

It is a good purpose and one that may have helped my movement from one side of the coin to the other but for me community has nothing to do with " sex as physical representation" that my gender identity lives within. This includes birth certificates and ID. Physical proof to the greatest extent possible.

One is abstract (transgender) and the other is physical (transsexual)

[sarahcsc]

Sara, here's a similar posiiton to your eating proposition: We are alll trying to get along in life. Wait - that's includes *everyone*! Meaningless.

You ask about focusing on differences. My stress is affinity, but difference is simply a negation of affinity. Same thing, right? You want to focus on similarities, I want to focus on affinity. Both of us want to put aside differences. So why the disjunct? Materialty.

Materiality is in the nature of the problem, the particular solutions,and the resulting life. In the case of a transsexual, that's being cross-sexed (fixed gender identity in opposition to birth physical sex), transition, and integration. If you want to include periodic crossdressing and male identity in the same category ("eating") then I think you have over-generalized.

At what point do you concede that you're trying to co-opt people against their will?

Okay, lets talk about affinities.

If the both of us like baseball, or has an affinity to baseball, is this not also a similarity?

Alternatively, we could go into our affinities for different teams, players, coaches, leagues, etc. to determine where our similarities end. Do you see my point?

I'm not trying to make this topic "meaningless", but I'm trying to broaden your views about it.

That is, you can be very precise and specific about something, or you can generalize it. They are both legitimate ways of perceiving the world and to adhere strictly to just one approach is paralyzing.

I mentioned that we could either focus on similarities or differences, but I didn't overemphasize one over the other.

The former fosters inclusiveness while the latter fosters exclusiveness. As humans, we need to be able to form a cohesive community but at the same time develop a unique sense of identity, in other words, we both need to be inclusive and exclusive at the same time.

I just think that "gender identity" is treated with too much exclusivity (at least here) that we lose sight of our similarities.

I'm not sure at what point I'd concede that I'm trying to co-opt people against their will, but I think we all do that to a certain extent anyways. I have assume that the guy next to me gets hungry hence he will need to eat, or that he gets tired hence he needs to sleep, or that he gets angry or frightened if I punched him in the face. I will not co-opt him against his will if he enjoys hunger, sleep deprivation or physical pain but unless he tells me, I'm just going to make an assumption that he is similiar to the vast majority of people I meet.

Yes, these are overgeneralizations but they are generally correct.

There is a reason that babies spit out foods that are bitter because bitter substances which occur naturally are usually poisonous. The ability to generalize and to form stereotypes is an evolutionary tool which helped the human species survive.

So... it still boils down to one question. Are you going to focus on our similarities or differences? They are both legitimate ways of perceiving the world but the way one chooses to perceive the world speaks volumes about one's personality and agendas.

Love,
S

[Michelle789]

Caitlyn Jenner, and all the others, represent the transgender community to a limited degree. They do some good for us, but they don't do everything.


CJ, and other celebrities

1. Do bring attention to transgender people.

2. Do make people more aware that transgender people exist.

3. Get to spread the message that transgender people are real people.

4. Get to spread the message that transgender people deserve our rights.

5. Get to educate the public, to some degree, about the transgender experience.


While these people do have influence through the media, and people are often easily swayed by the media, these celebs also have their limitations.

1. They are shielded from the crap that most of us go through because of having money, resources, and celebrity status.

2. It is easy to accept a transgender celebrity from a distance. Your relationship with CJ ends once you turn the TV (tube, idiot box, or whatever else you might call it ) off. It is a completely different story trying to accept your own child who is transgender. No celebrity can sway a parent to accept their own transgender child. Let me rephrase this. Plenty of celebrities struggle with drug addiction, alcoholism, sex addiction, and food disorders. Many of us still like to watch our entertainers on TV or listen to their music, and we can ignore their addictions and just enjoy the entertainment value they provide. It is WAY harder for a parent to accept their own child as having a drug or alcohol problem. Many parents disown their children for abusing drugs or alcohol. If they don't disown you for your addictions, they will likely treat you like crap and like a second class citizen for being an addict/alcoholic.

3. Not everyone is into pop culture. There are enough people who detest pop culture that they literally don't give a damn what CJ or any other celebrity says or does.

4. The average person can't relate to the lifestyle of a celebrity. Good luck trying to sway some closed-minded redneck or poor inner city people who have scant in common with celebs. The worst discrimination often comes from those who live below the poverty line. Most transgender people also sadly live below the poverty line, and have to put up with their neighbors and people on the street who also live below the poverty line. Think about this. Some poor person who has no money and no future and no realistic chance of ever living a lifestyle like the Kardashians isn't going to be swayed by a Kardashian to like transgender people. The only person who can ever sway the average lower class person to like trans people is another lower class person whom they can relate to. And that is not even close to guaranteed.

5. The people who do us the most harm are really, really sick, and twisted individuals. Nothing will ever change them. There are violent criminals who go to jail, do their time, come out of jail, and are back to a life of crime. And there are plenty of violent people who never, ever go to jail for their crimes. Sadly, absolutely nothing can change them.

6. The rich look down on everyone else any ways. The rich will never be swayed to like transwomen who live below the poverty line.



These people are all celebrities. By virtue of their celebrity status, they get access to resources that most of us don't have. They get the TV time that the rest of us can't get. They get TV time because they're already in the entertainment industry, so they naturally have the connections to getting air time.

Most of us don't have that. The best we might hope for is making a local newspaper or local television station.

Otherwise, the most we can do for activism is live our lives openly, get involved with local organizations to help transgender people, post on the internet about our experiences, and help other trans people who are struggling in any way that we can.

[Marcelle]

. . . Representation of the larger umbrella community: There is NO community! There is a sociopolitical, umbrella definition. There is no unitary group with members of common types or characteristics, goals, paths, or identity. The last is particularly important. Communities ARE identity groups FOREMOST. There are no common activities. No common governing organizations. No meetings. Publications. Nothing that characterizes any kind of real community. Yeah, a tiny minority show up at pride events. A tiny minority goes to support groups. (Noting here that the pattern with transsexuals is to disappear from them after a while.)

Pure symbolic representation, the type where an individual stands for some package of characteristics – even by implication or association – and even when forced on an unwilling individual - does occur. People who hate all Americans will have that hatred invoked anytime they see any American. Some people see a terrorist in every Muslim. Positive types can occur, too. Someone who evokes a hard-working mother may be seen as a symbol of all good things motherhood. On the flipside of things that are imposed are the things that people claim to represent symbolically. Family values. Patriotism. Racial purity.

I truly believe this post goes to the heart of the matter. We can theoretically define "community" as including all who share a common basis but unless there is more than common basis the term can become a bit watered. For example, in my current job I share an affinity with all service people in the Canadian military as we are by a very loose definition a "community", if I were in uniform and ran into another person in uniform I might nod or say hello but that is the extent because we share a common basis (military). However, as you drill down through the various layers Element (Air, Navy, Army), Branch, Occupation and experience, the sense of community gets smaller and smaller to the exclusion of others who are not in your sphere of defined community. A Navy supply technician does not represent me anymore than I represent her/him when out and about in public. Yet the public when seeing a person in uniform behaving badly (e.g., drunk and fighting in a bar) will most likely extend those behaviors to anyone within the loose definition of community unless they have a better understanding of the community (e.g., know this to not be indicative of all persons in the military).

When it comes to the concept of TG even the common thread (gender identity) varies across a wide swath of understanding and application. It is hard for anyone to truly represent a community when the common thread is tenuous at best. Perhaps as you drill down to various groups within (e.g., CD) you might be able to represent but even then there such diversity that representation can be misleading. When I am out and about in public or at work, I am sure people naturally assume I am TS because that is how they most likely perceive anyone who bucks gender conformity. So within my own sphere of influence (i.e., the world around me at that point it time) like it or not, I am the representative of this loosely defined community. If I act like a D-Bag most people will likely perceive TG folks as D-Bags, if I act like a . . . going to go out on a limb here . . . a decent human being and interact with others in such as a way as they only see a person not a concept (tranny, drag queen, sissy or whatever their perception is), they will most likely begin to see TG folk as just normal folk. Unless the person/people you interact with have a detailed understanding of what it means to be TG they will most likely lump all into the same grouping (sorry folks that is the way human beings are wired . . . we like neatly defined groups to make sense of things). So if I am rude to an SA she/he is not going to think . . . "Gender fluid people are such rude D-Bags" they are going to think "Trans people are such rude D-Bags". This of course will depend on that SAs understanding of the Trans folk. If she/he knows others trans folk to be nice then they are more likely to think "This trans person is a rude D-Bag".

I truly believe there is no real community (at least I didn't get the membership welcome package but then perhaps that is just me :)). We are a loose collection of souls who share a very loosely defined common underpinning (gender identity) which varies depending the person. We may get together on forums or in support groups but I believe for the most part we all just want to go about living our lives and being seen as people not some concept. So can there be any one true representative of the community? IMHO in the sense of a true spokesperson representing all . . . no. Sure celebs like Caitlyn can step into the limelight and be seen as a representative but, again they are working within their sphere of influence (media/entertainment) which happens to be very public. However, others here who go to work in their target gender are also representing in their sphere of influence. In essence whether you like it our not, agree with it our not when anyone who interacts with others in some gender non-conforming way is representing this loosely defined concept of community. The best any of us can ask is that you represent well and educate people as you move through the world. At work I prefer to interact as normally as possible even though the 500 pound elephant is in the room. If someone asks I let them know I am not TS and if they don't know what that means I explain it (as best I can) then educate them on how my GID pertains to me and only me. I like to think they walk away with a better understanding of what it means to be TG but then again I can only speak to myself not others.

Cheers

Isha

[Kaitlyn Michele]

sarah i dont find your arguments very compelling...
it does not boil down to "one question"..
surely platitudes like "lets focus on our similarities" are nice sound bytes....
but they dont mean much to somebody that has transitioned or desperately trying to get the courage to do so
and they dont highlight some agenda, and what specifically are these similarities anyway?

what is the agenda of people that dont focus on similarities?? how about to survive your GD by expessing your true gender identity...apologies if that hurts feelings...
and part of my survival was becoming almost inhumanly pragmatic about my reality and then doing something about it that fundamentally changed my life in every way..
what do you think the agenda is?? i'd like to hear it..

also since you focus on the similarities, what are they?? and what is your agenda?
i see a guy trying to get his wife to accept weekend dressing more like trying to get her to accept his incessant golf outings than like what ts people do.. what do you see??
I see a cd worrying about the bathroom as nuanced issue and not a civil right...i don't see how anybody can disagree that this is a tricky idea where common sense should prevail in each situation

what exactly do you want from a group of ts women? it seems to me what you want is for us to "broaden our views" and accept that we are something that we are not... no thanks

and for the millionth time...how is this hurting anybody for me to speak up strongly for my gender identity??

when you start to focus on specific details the canard of inclusiveness as some kind of powerful tool falls apart..

[Beth-Lock]

Caitlyn Jenner, love her or otherwise, is still just a character on a 'reality' show. EVERYBODY knows 'reality' shows are entirely scripted. ... We haven't yet actually heard from Cate, only the writers three floors down, who are all Cis. ... everything said on the show is very carefully filtered to either not offend, or to promote her network..


I think somebody said something about success being a bad, temperamental goddess, that will turn around and bite you -- I think it was Bud Schulberg.


...to assume her life is about shopping in stores we can't afford... I would love to spend three hours in wardrobe, and makeup every day, but that is not 'reality'.
... she is gaining notice from people who may never have heard the word transgender before. This is a good thing. Remember ... she is a television actress first, and trans second.
... . I truly admire the like of Janet Mock, Laverne Cox et al, and I'm glad they can use their celebrity for the good of the community.....

The mass media is doing it again, capturing the agenda of a reform minded movement, by focusing on appearance and style, and representing that as the essence of the movement. Who remembers Jack Kerouac? Who knows why the Beatles spelled the name of their group like that? Why was the hippie movement of social reform and their advocating of frugal versus greedy living, defeated absolutely with only a whimper on an obscure campus of the state university of Ohio, and merely by a tragic mistake? History can repeat itself.

Now it is trans issues they have adopted. The whole leadership issue is in a mess and a nauseating one. One mark of the phoniness, is murders of trans seem not to be dropping, but just if anything rising. That is what you get from pushing appearance and not the reality that we need help as a group, and reform to get society to accommodate us.

On a brighter note, I enjoy the Kardashians. They have figured out how to get and stay rich, from being famous for being well known, (the definition of being a celebrity). It is like figuring out how to create a money tree, and planting one in your backyard. I am envious!. I have quite a collection of magazines on the Kardashians and even a nicely photo featured book.

[Badtranny]

If we were electing a representative I would vote for someone like Janet Mock, or Jenny Boylan, or Andrea James.

Unfortunately, the only thing that qualifies an individual to be a representative is an audience. I can stand on a stump and say whatever I want, but unless I take my top off, I'm unlikely to gather an audience.

Caitlyn is not a perfect representative, but she has an audience so represent she shall.

[emma5410]

If we are electing representatives then I vote for Lana Wachowski (of Matrix fame).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crHHycz7T_c

[Ann Thomas]

You all bring up very good questions, concepts, and lots of names in this thread. There's huge diversity in our community, and that makes it difficult to have only one person, no matter who they might be, bear the burden of being our spokesperson. We have diversity of race, economic status, age, social status, career, and so on. We have those who have not completed much school to those who have earned doctorate degrees in a wide range of fields. We also have a huge diversity in our communities. With all the media attention I'm getting lately, I'm hearing from trans people all over the US (as well as other parts of the world), and here in this country, we have tremendous diversity of the way the communities operate.

I would not venture one single name forth as the sole leader of our community for this nation. The media may choose one or two, or three, but they fade out as new ones can be trotted out for the sake of financial gain once the old ones have lost their staying power of income for those with the purse strings.

There are lots of unsung heroes all over this country, working tirelessly day in and day out to help us, both from within our community (trans helping trans) and without (I speak of the dedicated allies). Those are the ones who should be honored by us all, regardless of who the media chooses to focus on.

[Suzanne F]

I vote for Theresa Sparks! She was the woman of the year in California and is the executive director of the Human Rights Commission for San Francisco. Theresa has vast experience in business and politics. She is my hero!
Suzanne

[LeaP]

Sara - materiality is the most important aspect of inclusiveness or exclusiveness. Isha hit on this when she characterized lack of materiality as "tenuous threads." My answer is that I focus on both simliarities and differences as each are material. Generalization and stereotyping serve the purposes you describe, but are only useful to the degree that the criteria are valid for the usage. You combine the red variant of an animal with the blue version into a single species if the difference is trivial or happenstance (regional, perhaps). You don't if there is an impact on, say, breeding patterns or adaptive behavior. When you go overbroad, or into irrelevancy, you open the generalization itself to a credibility challenge ... exactly what is happening here.

Gender identity - taking your meaning to be any kind of internal gender identification that varies from cissexual - seems to be a major criterion for you in gathering us all together in one big, happy family. (I should note in passing that the gender identity criterion leaves out the gender expression crowd.)

Someone who is cross-sexed (transsexual as most mean in the identity sense) doesn't have a gender identity problem, however. This is a fundamental difference (e.g., vs. gender variance) and not one of perspective. The most common pattern for cross-sexed individuals is coming to terms with the fact that they DON'T have an identity problem.

Taking it from the problem domain to classification, how do we properly classify cross-sexed and gender variant individuals? Are they actually cissexual? You COULD argue that a cross-sexed person is cissexual on the basis of normal variation, I suppose, but that would ignore many material biological differences. I think the best classification, based in current evidence, is that they are intersexed. And the gender variant? No research exists to show intersex classification. My guess is that other factors (e.g., socialization) are more relevant. If so, it isn't even a matter of which branch of the tree to which each type should be assigned ... it's an entirely different taxonomy.

Formally, conflation isn't the same as over-generalization, as the former can span all kinds of conceptual, logical, and relationship lines. Over-generalization is more a misapplication of hierarchical abstraction. In the case of biological taxonomy, we are conflating intersex and non-intersex conditions. In the case of political taxonomies, we are conflating the willing and unwilling. (If you like feminist constructs, this is considered violence.) In the case of the problem domain, we are conflating different epidemiologies AND, even more narrowly, different branches of medicine.

The results are entirely predicable. They include the loss of important differences between populations as well as the masking and loss of similarities them as relationships are hidden. In a social and political context, next level effects are solutions that are inapt, inappliable across the population, over-broad, or ridden with prioritization and focus disputes. ... Which should sound familiar.

Conflating populations and overgeneralizing in solutions disputes impedes progress by broadening both the field of issues that must be considered as well as the number of people, groups, jurisdictions, etc. that must be involved. You can pick almost any "transgender" issue at random as an example.

[becky77]

Wow Lea, I just about followed that!

I'm curious to find out about these similarities?

I've been told that Transvestites and Drag queens are part of the TG umbrella?
Taking Transvestites as an example, I use the term Transvestite because it is by definition purely a sexual/fetish characteristic in regards to the clothes.
Whereas Crossdresser is too broad and can incorporate people with identity issues, and no fetish needs.

So using the fetishist as an example, by far the largest segment of the Umbrella (just not on this forum, especially as most are totally closeted).
These people have no identity or dysphoria issues, there isn't a gender issue, they just have a fetish for the clothing, so not much different to adult babies or Furries.

Tell me how the above has any similarities to a TS person?

The umbrella is so large and incorporates so much the message is totally dumbed down and useless. A drag queen can no more represent me than I can represent them.

We are so very different, you may as well include every misfit and minority to the Umbrella party.

There is no point in all grouping together to have one voice, when that voice becomes garbled confusion.

And who decides inclusion in this Umbrella anyway?
If a guy goes to a fancy dress party dressed as a woman one time as a joke, does he join the Umbrella?
If that's the case my brother and half his friends are apparently the same as me!

It just doesn't work.

[Peggie Lee]

For good or bad we all represent the transsexual community every time we go out as our true selves. The public wants definitions and answers to what Trans means but the answer is as varied as the person asked. We can only represent ourselves and just hope we do a good job of it.

Peggy

[mechamoose]

Ok, let me rephrase the question, because obviously we seem to have some definition differences.


1. be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity.
"for purposes of litigation, an infant can and must be represented by an adult"
synonyms: appear for, act for, speak on behalf of; informalgo to bat for
"her lawyer represented her in court"

2.constitute; amount to.
"this figure represents eleven percent of the company's total sales"
synonyms: constitute, be, amount to, be regarded as
"aging represents a threat to one's independence"


My feelings tend towards the idea that any of us can represent us, because we *are* who we are. Great or small, ideal or not, we are all part of the same phenomenon.

If your intended definition is who is the pinnacle of an ideal, then I guess that is where we disagree.

I'm not going to transition or pass, I never will. That doesn't mean that I feel any less exposed or at risk. That doesn't mean that I count less.

At least that is how I feel.

I respect the hell out of those members who are transforming. I will put myself in harms way for any of you.

I hope your view is that this doesn't 'count enough'.

Please advise.

- MM

[Katey888]

I think Isha's point that the idea of community lacks substance goes to the heart of this too... The TG umbrella is a positive idea, and would have more substance if it were known that we were all somehow connected, but I don't believe that this is yet the case.

Transsexuals need and deserve representation because their legal status, the changes required as part of transition (however one defines that but where it impacts any legal status), employment and discrimination protection, etc. all this needs to be reflected by societal systems that recognise the validity of the condition and the individuals it affects.

Those between just CD and TS (I think Isha is our 'state of the art' representative here - I know of no other who has met the part time issue head on with any major institution or employer, but I'd love to be educated if they're out there... :)) also clearly need representation, even though the intermittent condition may be much harder to define and represent.

'CD' is still too broad a definition - even here we have folk that are comfortable just underdressing (no representation needed for that, I feel) through to those who - perhaps similar to Isha - do feel that they have a genuine and authentic need to express a feminine aspect, but not all the time, and for whom this condition is not just a fun or social thing. These expressions can also vary greatly from femulation (what I and many others feel is right), through androgynous/mixed mode (MM is one example) and NDCDs (Neck-Down CDs - Jason+ and Robinadress, for example). I'm not sure we need representation as such, unless we feel such pressure to be partially out and then we approach Isha's Para-Transsexual (Sorry - I'm trying to encapsulate what this condition really is and I don't mean that disrespectfully...) and then representation and understanding is important. Grouping all of these together for muggle understanding is just too, too hard, imho. :confused:

With respect, fetish CDers need no representation other than the right to do what they want in private as consenting adults or remaining within normal boundaries when in public... :)

Representation for TG as a whole, I'm not sure is meaningful.... Representation for TS and ParaTS is meaningful, but I think can only genuinely come from those groups - at least until a better understanding of these conditions is developed.

SUPPORT, can come from all of us but has to be voluntary - at least some of it can be anonymous, which I know seems like anathema to some of you, but it is what it is... :)

Katey x

[Kaitlyn Michele]

heres the issue..

we are NOT part of the same PHENOMENON unless we are both transsexuals..
.

if you cross dress, if you have a fetish, if you have a femme side thats great... i am all for it...but we are not part of the same phenomenon, we just aren't....


every time you say i am part of the so called umbrella it is invalidating to me as someone that identifies as just a woman...
and i find it hugely ironic that on the other side of that statement is somebody demanding that i accept how they identify and accept how i am just like them...

i could go all feminist on this and assert its just male privilege... but its less obvious than that... there is legitimate confusion and many unknowns....but i do know i'm not a man, i'm not a cross dresser, i'm not gender queer or fluid...etcetc

[mechamoose]

I'm a girl. I feel that in every fiber of my bones. I live in a male body, yet I still feel what I feel.

How am I any less than you?

I will fight with every ounce of energy that I have to help you and protect you girls who could/would/might be victims of ignorance. I am a big bull male who loves presenting as female.

I don't see how I'm deficient because I can't actually pull that off.

Really, you girls need to take a deep breath and accept those of us who give a damn.

- MM

[Sandra]

Ok to many are taking this personally and not answering the OP

Thread closed.