You are right, Karren, they are just labels.
I will not be labelled.
"Be who you are, because everyone else is taken."
Yeah!
Printable View
You are right, Karren, they are just labels.
I will not be labelled.
"Be who you are, because everyone else is taken."
Yeah!
as if we didn't need more labels to confuse ourselves. we should just be able to be ourselves, what ever we decide we are.
Yep :)Quote:
Originally Posted by curse within
And thats why a metrosexual is transgender because by using hair product and getting facials and manicures those things are seen as crossing sex-segregated norms. And a camp gay person by behaving effeminantly or a butch lesbian with their traits associated with masculinity are all also transgender. Also a person who is androgynous in appearance is also transgender.
Certainly for many of these things it has nothing to do with feelling female on the inside but more to do with what our current culture sets aside for male or for female.
But because of the common discriminations, legal issues etc there are strong shared issues and connections that make them all as much a part of transgender as the strongly transexual that know they are in the wrong body from the age of 3.
Thanks Batty,
I am not trying to label anyone or place myself under one...I would like an understanding for one that(not from this forum) others may place me in..
So Batty I am lamen and need it placed in my terms , the term or label transgender is more of the trunk as you suggested.. Gender meaning both sexes, Trans is what meaning under this umbrella? You do certain things accociated to the sex you were not born as ,that is reconised by a soceity to a specific gender only? Just want be be sure.
The basic meaning of Trans may help you. From my old oxford concise I used through school:Quote:
Originally Posted by curse within
Trans-: across, beyond (such as transgress, transcontinental) on or to the other side of (such as transatlantic) Through (transonic, transpierce) into another state or place (transcribe, transform, transliterate) surpassing, transcending
and there are chemical and physics meanings to it too, which is where we get the opposite to Trans of Cis.
The word Trans comes from Latin for Accross.
So for a transsexual the trans- meaning is to change their sex-anatomy while for an andrognous person it's to go beyond gender. So the Trans can have several related meanings. To swap gender rules, to go beyond gender rules, to be of the other gender, all are equally correct.
OK Batty, I'm drawn into this discussion ...Quote:
Originally Posted by curse within
Let me ask you a question: Who decides what sex the clothing is that we "choose to feed the fetish with"?
And following on from that:
Shall I allow these people to project their perceptions of the sex of the clothing onto me, thereby labelling me?
And here are a few more to tickle your brain cells ...
If you had a partner that wears all the feminine clothing that you crave to feed your fetish, and she/he wears them quite freely, of their own choice, thereby satisfying your craving/fetish, would you still have the urge to crossdress?
If not, would you still be transgendered (in your terms, not mine)?
Well that could be looked at from two directions. Who decides what clothes feed your fetish? Well thats both you and the source of your fetish, the latter being perhaps biological, psychological or associative. More on that in a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayfish
Who decides what sex it is that that particular clothing is associated with? Well that is definately society and fashion trends as those things are largely culturally specific and several items like high heels stockings etc have swapped over from male to female.
Ah but for many whose fetish source is associative the fact that they are womens clothes, or perhaps the clothes that they (un?)conciously associate with women from the time they formed the association may be the deciding factor! And these may all be operating together so a biological or psychological source or all together may mean that it is the classification of those items as womens that leads to them feeding the fetish.
When clothes have changed classification or broadened classification gender-transgression has often been a big part of it. The women with short hair and pants now may not consider it transgender but those who started the trend included crossdressing women! In fact much of fashion involves crossdressing through generations, such as the vogue designer/artist wife of the first SRS transexual using her then-husband crossdressed as a model! (soon to be the subject of a movie starring Nicole Kidman as the transsexual!)
So in fact there is a complicated feedback where transgender people influence fashion which influences standard gender presentation which then influences transgender tastes which then influences fashion and around it goes changing over time!
Ah well, there is label as identity politics and social grouping and then there is label as academic descriptive term. In the former its up to you how you label yourself and how you communicate to those who will, by human nature, identify you by their own labels. In the latter you have even less say, the accuracy of the descriptors largely determines that over time, though there is politics and advocacy involved there too.Quote:
And following on from that:
Shall I allow these people to project their perceptions of the sex of the clothing onto me, thereby labelling me?
Of course one might object entirely to the gender-catagorisation of items of apparel etc.
Interesting question. Personally while like most humans some clothing prompts sexual response I learned that I was mistaken when I previously believed that it was just sexual fetish of clothing and loneliness that led me to crossdress. So I have the answer to your first question. As for your 'If not' I then have to consider that hypothetically.Quote:
And here are a few more to tickle your brain cells ...
If you had a partner that wears all the feminine clothing that you crave to feed your fetish, and she/he wears them quite freely, of their own choice, thereby satisfying your craving/fetish, would you still have the urge to crossdress?
If not, would you still be transgendered (in your terms, not mine)?
Someone who was in the past a crossdresser purely because of a fetish for clothing but who currently has a partner whose clothing satisfies that need 100% conciously and unconciously would, while that remained the case, be no longer transgender. However they had been in the past and if the present situation changed so that they crossdressed again to satisfy their need then again they would be transgender.
Now if they seemed satisfied at first but felt the need to crossdress again even though the partner still dresses thusly (for example after some time of their partners clothing satisfying them they may desire to also wear that clothing while with their partner) then one may logically propose that unconciously they had remained transgender and the temporary reprieve merely satisfied that aspect conciously for a short time.
How about 'sex' meaning physical construction (mechanical connections are also described as 'male' or 'female') and 'gender' meaning about feelings and expression - in many languages, words are divided by 'gender' into 'masculine' and feminine'..Quote:
Originally Posted by curse within
Batty,
Thank you so much...Most of all for keeping this thread on topic as it should have stayed from the start.. Ignorance is a bliss as knowledge is the key and you are in my opinion are a wealth of knowledge..
To be able to communicate through a thread and not take ones opinion as a personal attack no matter what it may be is well needed in a forum of this nature. People just want to go through life with blinders on thinking everything is positive..Little do they know everything on this planet would not exist without negative and until you learn to not only accept the positives you have to understand and accept the negatives. Thats how we learn though through understanding..
Batty you have earned my upmost respect thanks again for helping me get an understanding..
***BE ADVISED***
The website referenced above is a commercial enterprise with the sole purpose of selling you product. Any claims made should be viewed as being designed to sell you something.
:o Aww thanks Curse Within!Quote:
Originally Posted by curse within
It can be tough though, especially for some emotive thinkers who can find discussing anything without it being personal very difficult. It also doesn't help that teaching by rote actively dicourages friendly dissagreement. Hopefully the move to teach philosophy in early school will help the world.Quote:
To be able to communicate through a thread and not take ones opinion as a personal attack no matter what it may be is well needed in a forum of this nature.
Oh absolutely. We need to acknowledge the negative so that we can act to minimise it's harm. Though it is true that as CDing often involves depression and suicidal ideation for those struggling to accept it there can be good reasons for acknowledging that many are emotionally and psychologically vulnerable with the subject, that they may need to view it positively to overcome irrational but endemic negative social indoctrination on the subject.Quote:
People just want to go through life with blinders on thinking everything is positive..Little do they know everything on this planet would not exist without negative and until you learn to not only accept the positives you have to understand and accept the negatives. Thats how we learn though through understanding..
So in fact there is logical reasons why people may focus on the positive and react strongly to discussions or views of the negative. So it's always more than an academic discussion. Thats not an argument for censorship though, but for care and tact at times where people may be vulnerable (and that goes very much for those disagreeing with CW too! We all should be considered vulnerable! Disagree by all means but be careful how you say it please everyone!)
Also one CDs positive may be anothers negative, subjective viewpoints are valid, only for the self sure but still are valid.
Aww, :hugs: no worries curse within! I'm glad to have helped!Quote:
Batty you have earned my upmost respect thanks again for helping me get an understanding..
It's an enjoyable discussion. I thank you! For asking intelligent questions that helped me find ways to explain the idea to you and for being open minded so as to be able to understand it whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion.
You too have earned my respect! :love:
Hmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicki B
One of the major issues is that gender is considered to some extent connected to and related to sex. Clearly gender is more often flexible than sex. But there may be biological connections, at least in averages and commonalities, between gender and sex.
Its worth reminding ourselves that the mysteries of sex diversity and of gender are far from fully explored by science, barely begun perhaps, so our own attempts at understanding the subject now can not possibly be complete! We have to make the best guesses and understanding we can with an incomplete puzzle and keep our eyes on future scientific discoveries from neuroscience to sociology and anthropology.
Indeed.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by battybattybats
I was trying to prompt the thought that they are not necessarily the same? It gets even more complicated when we start to discuss what is a 'man' or a 'woman'..
How about Blue ????
HollyQuote:
Originally Posted by Nicki B
Thanks, for pointing that out. Just looking at the photos on that site, Most are obviously photoshopped or a GG woman. It's one thing to sell something, but when it's blatentently false you have to point out when it's JUST done for the money.
Kelly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly