transgender or crossdresser?

[Jodi M]

IMO if you crossdress there is a feminine part to who you are and you are transgendered ,if we have to be into terms or labels.

[SweetIonis]

I have another question for you, although it will be nearly impossible to answer. If this person did not have the physique that she has, the "passability" so to speak, and had she not enjoyed all this positive reinforcement as the result, from members or admirers in the TG community (assuming this is where she did get it ... I've seen this before), would she still feel she is a woman?

In other words, do the feelings that she doesn't want to be a man any more come from the positive reinforcements she receives? If there were no positive reinforcements, if most people ignored her or worse, eyed her with suspicion, would she still derive deep satisfaction from living her life as a woman? A TS would, because she is a woman.

Reine, the question is not at all impossible to answer if we remember the context from which the scenario that I put forward came. It was assumed ORIGINALLY THAT THE PERSON WAS NOT A TS, but merely a person who liked to dress up occasionally and live out some romanticized role of a woman. Then due to positive feedback this led to more activity which led to more of the behavior. I also put forward the notion that this led to an EXPANSION into other types of activities that the person associated with being those of a woman. Possibly not just dressing to go out to a club, but maybe around the house, doing chores. Then maybe going to sleep and enjoying their romanticized version of womanhood. Then maybe venturing outside to do shopping etc. The point is that the person becomes gradually absorbed more and more in acting and feeling like a woman to the point that the dominant focus of their mind is engaging in that type of activity. At a certain point the person will just start to think of themselves as a woman and at that point they are actually a TS.

It's not that they start the process trying to determine what their gender identity is. They start out merely just having fun. Then the process of operant conditioning gradually imposes the gender identification of being a woman on the person. At that point they naturally feel that way, REGARDLESS OF THE SETTING.

Don't underestimate pink fog. It is very powerful. I'm not speaking of the giddy, delightful feeling of being feminine here, but of the illusion of altered reality that it can produce, even down to perhaps seeing a different image in the mirror than others see. It is possible for someone in a pink fog to bring herself to believe she is TS even if she is not. I believe there is a specific allure with the trappings of femininity that is associated with a pink fog, that I do not think is present when a TS wakes up in the morning and she knows in the deepest part of herself that she is a woman, no matter what she looks like or what she does.

I totally agree it's powerful and it could bewilder someone into confusing that state of mind with that of a TS. But I will try to put the two states in contrast. My experience with pink fog is that at the end of the day, you go back to your male stuff and you are comfortable, everything is fine after the experience is over. For a TS it's quite a bit different. The TS feels uncomfortable acting in a male role, feels uncomfortable wearing men's clothing. They feel that they have to strain to walk like a man, talk like a man, to the point that trying to put forward such a presentation becomes VERY IRRITABLE. There are different types of women so there will be different types of TS persons who express their femininity differently. For one type the may find that NATURALLY they feel like they want to look pretty ALL THE TIME. They want to have pretty nails, have pretty hair, wear pretty clothes ALL THE TIME. Such a person might find that they want to have their house look pretty, decorated with flowers and be neat and as clean as possible ALL THE TIME. They might feel that they would be content to have a man to go out and earn a living while they stay home and keep it in nice order so that their man will be happy when he comes home from a hard days work. They might feel that they want to be sexually attractive for that man so that he will look on her as an object of supreme beauty and by doing so she derives great satisfaction. She will want to be touched liked a woman would be touched by a man. Feel what a woman feels when she enjoys sexual pleasure with a man. She may feel uncomfortable with her sexual organs, and desire to have a vagina, breasts, large hips, etc. She feels the STRONG need to present herself as a woman to others at ALL TIMES, IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and just naturally feels that way. These feelings are VERY STRONG and persistent. They do not go away. And as such the person just feels that they are in the wrong type of body and feels GREAT dissatisfaction in that regard.

Now that's what I conceptualize TS to be. And that's quite a bit different from a person in the pink fog.

I agree though, this person will have to find a way to deal with how she will live her life. It is my understanding that TSs reach a point where living as a male even if just for work simply is no longer an option. But, whether she is TS or not, if she is enamored with her life of TG nightclubs, sparkly dresses, and men who are interested in her even though she may not be interested in them, it will be difficult for her to find anything in her regular life that is interesting in comparison.

Actually Reine, there are GGs who are like that. And while that may work for some time, eventually they come to a point where that type of life, by itself just doesn't work anymore. It's not uncommon to see such persons experience psychological depression when that happens. So I think that is something that would not be unique to a person who is a TS. Actually it's something that men can also experience, but in a different way. We all need to try to live in such a way that we find value in things of substance as opposed to the glitter of the moment.

Any rate I could say more about your post, but my response is getting long. Maybe I will add some more later! LOL!

[Speck]

Sweetionis,

You wrote:

Then due to positive feedback this led to more activity which led to more of the behavior. I also put forward the notion that this led to an EXPANSION into other types of activities that the person associated with being those of a woman. Possibly not just dressing to go out to a club, but maybe around the house, doing chores. Then maybe going to sleep and enjoying their romanticized version of womanhood. Then maybe venturing outside to do shopping etc. The point is that the person becomes gradually absorbed more and more in acting and feeling like a woman to the point that the dominant focus of their mind is engaging in that type of activity. At a certain point the person will just start to think of themselves as a woman and at that point they are actually a TS."

Are you suggesting that spending more and more time expressing as a woman makes a person think of themselves as a woman? I think a FTM may have a different view. Actually, even a MtF might say that no matter how much time they spend in male mode and no matter how priveleged a life they had in male mode, it never resulted in feeling completely like a man. It would be interesting to hear from others 'cause I think there's some flawed logic there.

Then you went on to write:

[B]"My experience with pink fog is that at the end of the day, you go back to your male stuff and you are comfortable, everything is fine after the experience is over."[/B]

Again, it would be nice to hear from others because my understanding is that Pink Fog or not, CD, TG, TS, many have a very hard time ending the "dressing session". The exception I've heard about is the Sexual Fetish CD. But I could be wrong.

You went on further with this:

"For one type the may find that NATURALLY they feel like they want to look pretty ALL THE TIME. They want to have pretty nails, have pretty hair, wear pretty clothes ALL THE TIME. Such a person might find that they want to have their house look pretty, decorated with flowers and be neat and as clean as possible ALL THE TIME. They might feel that they would be content to have a man to go out and earn a living while they stay home and keep it in nice order so that their man will be happy when he comes home from a hard days work. They might feel that they want to be sexually attractive for that man so that he will look on her as an object of supreme beauty and by doing so she derives great satisfaction. She will want to be touched liked a woman would be touched by a man. Feel what a woman feels when she enjoys sexual pleasure with a man."

Let's side aside for a moment that I find your description of such a woman very sexist and rather offensive (genetic woman have fought hard not to be treated as objects and to work and be taken seriously outside of the home). Let's just forget that because men's perception of what it means to be a woman and a woman's perception of what it means to be a woman has been debated on this site many times. But my reaction to what you've laid out is that that is complete fantasy (not a woman's fantasy, a TG fantasy). I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me but to me, that is more of a CD than a TS. TSs may want to express as a woman but I hate to think that TSs want to present as a bimbo and a trophy.

I realize you're speaking hypothetically and I'm sure you didn't mean to offend...but gosh...you describe something more like D/s sub culture than gender expression issues. Maybe I misinterpreted your point because I couldn't get past that list of what you think woman want.

Speck

[SweetIonis]

Sweetionis,

Are you suggesting that spending more and more time expressing as a woman makes a person think of themselves as a woman? I think a FTM may have a different view. Actually, even a MtF might say that no matter how much time they spend in male mode and no matter how priveleged a life they had in male mode, it never resulted in feeling completely like a man. It would be interesting to hear from others 'cause I think there's some flawed logic there.

The flaw in your response is that you have completely ignored the following statement:

"Then the process of operant conditioning gradually imposes the gender identification of being a woman on the person."

It's more precise to say the process of operant conditioning along with principle of stimulus generalization combine to form the efficient causality. When the words are taken in that context your contention is neatly put to rest.

Again, it would be nice to hear from others because my understanding is that Pink Fog or not, CD, TG, TS, many have a very hard time ending the "dressing session". The exception I've heard about is the Sexual Fetish CD. But I could be wrong.

The problem with using nomenclature like "pink fog" is that it is a vague notion, that lacks precise meaning and therefore means many things to many different people. I tried to clarify the difference in an actual TS and a CD by saying that a CD will experience little or no difficulty in presenting in male mode. For the TS that is not the case. They experience great discomfort and/or difficulty when they present in male mode. The emotional content of their mind makes it to difficult.

Let's side aside for a moment that I find your description of such a woman very sexist and rather offensive (genetic woman have fought hard not to be treated as objects and to work and be taken seriously outside of the home). Let's just forget that because men's perception of what it means to be a woman and a woman's perception of what it means to be a woman has been debated on this site many times. But my reaction to what you've laid out is that that is complete fantasy (not a woman's fantasy, a TG fantasy). I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me but to me, that is more of a CD than a TS. TSs may want to express as a woman but I hate to think that TSs want to present as a bimbo and a trophy.

I realize you're speaking hypothetically and I'm sure you didn't mean to offend...but gosh...you describe something more like D/s sub culture than gender expression issues. Maybe I misinterpreted your point because I couldn't get past that list of what you think woman want.

Speck

Whether you and other feminists like you (not all of them), like it or not, there are some women who conceptualize and express there feelings of being a woman in that way. You can dislike what I have said or despise me for saying it, but it's the truth. I'm merely saying what other women have said. And many of them take great offense in you and others like you trying to belittle their feelings and putting your image on a higher platform. I'm not sorry in the least for saying it.

[Angela Dressing]

Thats a definition that i can live with

[Speck]

SweetIonis,

My contention is not at all put to rest. TSs tell me gender identity cannot be imposed. And while I agree that the term "pink fog" can mean different things to different people, there have been a number of threads questioning why CDing escalates dramatically around mid-life. For the thousands of TGs who find themselves wanting more and more feminine expression, a small percentage come to terms with the fact that they've always known their gender identity is female and proceed to transition. Some would like to transition but decide not to. And some, over time, find balance or find a way to integrate. Until that balance is found, many TGs here have referred to that state as being in a "pink fog". Among other reasons, I think one of the reasons the process of transitioning includes living as your target gender before SRS is to avoid someone making such a major decision when they're going through a phase.

I find it rather amusing that you've called me a feminist. You don't need to be sorry for saying what you percieve being a woman is all about. That may indeed be what you've heard but that doesn't make it the truth. I'd call it selective hearing. But hey, why not prove me wrong and start a thread asking GGs if they would "be content to have a man to go out and earn a living while they stay home and keep it in nice order so that their man will be happy when he comes home from a hard days work".

Speck

[SweetIonis]

A person who understands operant conditioning and stimulus generalization, will understand what I have said. Perhaps you think you are above such things, seeing that you have put yourself on a pedestal and are kindly pontificating downwards to those of us beneath your level of erudition, but you are not. You are just like all the rest of us and are subject to that type of influence.

As far as what women think here's a link to a view different from yours:

WOMEN AGAINST FEMINISM

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with everything there, but it demonstrates, there is a point of view that is different from yours. You may not like it, but some women can't stand being told how they should feel or run their life by some sanctimonious elitist.

[ReineD]

I had to look those terms up. The concept is basic, really. Reminds me of Pavlov's conditioning experiments. Anyway, for those who are interested, here are brief descriptions, from psychology.about.com

Operant conditioning: (sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning) is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. Through operant conditioning, an association is made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior. The term was coined by behaviorist B.F. Skinner.

Stimulus generalization: the tendency for the conditioned stimulus to evoke similar responses after the response has been conditioned. For example, if a child has been conditioned to fear a stuffed white rabbit, it will exhibit fear of objects similar to the conditioned stimulus such as a white toy rat.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I gather you are saying, Ionis, that a CDer who goes out and receives positive reinforcement by perhaps being told repeatedly how beautiful she is (the reward), will seek even more experiences that will elicit similar rewards, and over time the desire to be a woman will override her desire to be a man. This in turn will change something inwardly where she will cease to have a male gender ID. In a nutshell.

Whether this turns her into a TS or not is certainly debatable. I rather think she isn't and I wish I could find a better word than "pink fog" to describe what I believe she is experiencing. Leaving this aside, however, I'd like to address the notion you and Speck have been discussing, that (some) women want to be submissive and please their man.

You pointed us to a site by women who want to do just that, which they believe is going against feminist principles, hence the name of their group. I know that the second wave feminism during the 60s/70s was quite militant, with the bra burning, the assertions that women were no different than men, in fact, that men were hateful. This was an extremist view in my opinion although it was a necessary pendulum swing, to bring us all out of the brief post-war, 1950s submissive, "women should sit pretty and not have opinions" opposite pendulum swing of women's roles during the last century.

Thank goodness the third wave feminists came along in the 80s to help us all reach a balance. They taught us that we do have choices. We can choose to stay home and raise children if we want to and this doesn't mean we are less valid than those of us who choose to pursue careers, with the idea that we should be paid the same salary as the men who perform the same work. This doesn't mean, however, that the women who do choose to stay home are Stepford Wives.

The submissive woman you described a few posts above simply isn't real to me. She seems quite vacuous. I honestly don't know anyone like that. I was a mom at home for 25 years and there's no way I was like that. lol. Over the years I've known hundreds of other women, other moms, as my three sons went through the primary and secondary grades. They weren't like that either. Some of us worked, and others who could afford it stayed home. We rather thought of ourselves as equal partners to our husbands, with our own opinions, our own minds, and sometimes there was conflict as there is bound to be when two people are living together and they become at odds over some situations.

At any rate, the link you posted points to a group of women who are against second wave feminists. I don't blame them. The time for second wave feminism has passed. But, this doesn't mean that these women are submissive to the degree you describe above. Or, some of them may well be, who knows. There is a group of men out there who also are determined to conform to older stereotypes, by being "THE HUSBAND, LORD AND MASTER OF THE HOME". Maybe they are married to the women in your link.

There are all types of people out there, but for the purpose of this discussion, I think it best to not find small obscure groups of people and say that what they do works for most of us, in this day and age.

[SweetIonis]

Reine, first things first. Since your opinion on the matter of whether the person was a TS or not was briefly stated, without much discussion I will simply respond that if I walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I can discuss that concept of how a person could start out not being a TS and end up there in much greater detail. I may actually do so with a more detailed scenario later.

But on to the issue of what women want. When I first put forward that notion in a response to you first of all I don't think I ever used the word submissive, and furthermore I know I said not all women feel that way. You have injected the words submissive into my mouth and I think that's quite unfair. And both you and Speck have totally ignored the fact that I said not all TSs would feel that way, WHICH IMPLIES THAT NOT ALL WOMEN FEEL THAT WAY. Now you can say it's not realistic but I know a few that are like that. And it will do no good for me to say that because you do not believe me. Therefore, I found a link online where women who do not feel that way that you and Speck feel express their opinion SIMPLY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NEITHER OF YOU SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN. I certainly do not speak for ALL women. Furthermore you chose to ignore the FACT that I said I do not necessarily agree with everything there. I clearly stated that the purpose of posting that link was to demonstrate that there was a view held by SOME women that is quite different from the one that Speck and it appears you have put forward.

Now I found the tone of Specks to be somewhat malicious. I particular, I feel that the use of the term "binbow" to describe a woman who feels that way was particularly malicious. To me this indicated a person that has been to overcome by anger to properly debate on an intellectual level. So therefore I stopped the analytical tone and just gave brief responses. In contrast, I find that although you do not agree with what I said, you have kept up a proper, respectful tone, and as long as that continues, I assure you I will do my utmost to respond in kind and will delight in a good debate.

Now that said, I do have a problem with the fact that you have implied that I am attempting to speak for all women and that I have put forward that the link to that website in an attempt to paint a picture of women in general that conforms to that conceptualization. I have done neither. Also again, I have a problem with your use of the word submissive to describe what I posted in my scenario. Just because a woman would prefer to stay at home, take care of the house, and take pleasure in giving pleasure to her man does not mean that she is some mindless robot who merely follows instructions. Quite the contrary. Actually it is quite a big endeavor to manage a house ESPECIALLY one where there are several kids. IT'S A FULL TIME JOB. It requires considerable expertise to do properly. That's one point. The next point is that it doesn't mean that the woman does not have a mind of her own. She can express her opinion, promote her own ideas publicly and probably in many cases has the final word in what goes on in the house and how finances are managed. That's not a submissive "binbow".

Any rate, I have to go to work. I will respond more later when I come home.

But thanks for the civil exchange. I really appreciate and enjoy it!

[ReineD]

Reine, first things first. Since your opinion on the matter of whether the person was a TS or not was briefly stated, without much discussion I will simply respond that if I walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I can discuss that concept of how a person could start out not being a TS and end up there in much greater detail. I may actually do so with a more detailed scenario later.

Fair 'nuff, although I'm afraid that you and I simply won't come to a meeting of the minds on this. If you are ultimately talking about yourself I won't presume to tell you how you feel and if you feel you are TS, this is your call and perfectly valid. Please believe me when I say this.

But if you are constructing a "what if" scenario, what you describe matches my definition of ultimate "pink fog", for lack of a better word. The TS's threads I read here do not describe being a woman to such a high degree of enthrallment or excitement as you do, in fact they all say it is just being normal and excitement free, much like anyone else who is not transgender, man or woman, feels while going about their normal lives. And it doesn't appear as if they hold stereotypical views of womanhood like you do in the quote below, which I also observe is shared by many other CDers here as well.

I'm quoting below your words from post #52, that gave me the impression you believe that women in this role feel submissive.

"For one type the may find that NATURALLY they feel like they want to look pretty ALL THE TIME. They want to have pretty nails, have pretty hair, wear pretty clothes ALL THE TIME. Such a person might find that they want to have their house look pretty, decorated with flowers and be neat and as clean as possible ALL THE TIME. They might feel that they would be content to have a man to go out and earn a living while they stay home and keep it in nice order so that their man will be happy when he comes home from a hard days work. They might feel that they want to be sexually attractive for that man so that he will look on her as an object of supreme beauty and by doing so she derives great satisfaction. She will want to be touched liked a woman would be touched by a man. Feel what a woman feels when she enjoys sexual pleasure with a man."

But on to the issue of what women want. When I first put forward that notion in a response to you first of all I don't think I ever used the word submissive, and furthermore I know I said not all women feel that way. You have injected the words submissive into my mouth and I think that's quite unfair.

I'll take back the word "submissive" if you like, and referring to your italicized quote just above, I'll substitute it for "being in a secondary, or subordinate role to her husband", in other words, she lives to cater to his whims and further, that she may well get a sexual charge out of doing this. I do not know women who are like this. I do know couples who both dote on each other, who both do nice things for each other, but the activities they engage in are interchangeable. They are not so mired in the strict traditional roles you describe, not in this day and age. And in my view, any woman today who feels the way you describe above has given up her own drive for self-actualization in favor of catering to her husband. It's one thing for her to take on the responsibilities of running the household if this is what they decide, while he earns the salary, but her motive in doing this is as a full and equal partner in the relationship. She's just doing her job because it is their agreement, and the motives have nothing to do with keeping "her man happy when he comes home from a hard days work". What you describe here is every man's fantasy (again I am reminded of the movie, "Stepford Wives"), and not a woman's, at least, no women that I know. I agree with you there MUST be some women who do feel like this, but honestly I am speaking here of the rule and not the exception.

In terms of sexuality, yes it's true that women want to be touched and held, but again, I don't believe this is any different than men who also want to be touched and held. Sex is a powerfully vulnerable experience for both women and men and other than specific D/s sexual relationships or other deep desires to be sexually dominant or submissive that really has nothing to do with gender (gay couples are D/s as well), thresholds are reached when two people are intimate that transcend any gender, period. They both reach nirvana and nirvana is gender free, at least it is for me. Also, men and women do engage in a variety of positions and acts during their love making sessions and it is simply not as one-sided as the impression I get from your description. Again, I think you are describing every CDer's fantasy of what it is like to be a woman.

And last, again referring to your italicized quote above, the idea that women "want to feel pretty ALL THE TIME" is simply not realistic and again I believe it to be a CDer's dream. I can see a woman who is on a lookout for a mate paying more attention to her presentation than say a harried mom, kids in tow, who is running to the grocery store to buy something for dinner, but honestly most women that I know don't have this idealized view of themselves. We can and do dress up and put on makeup when the situation calls for it, but for most of us it is simply something we do to look presentable, and then we just forget about it and go on with our day or evening. There is not this constant background "thrill" in our psyches over wearing pantyhose, heels, lipstick or mascara, or feeling our long hair brush against our necks for example.

Now that said, I do have a problem with the fact that you have implied that I am attempting to speak for all women and that I have put forward that the link to that website in an attempt to paint a picture of women in general that conforms to that conceptualization.

Actually, I'm not putting any stock in the Women Against Feminism that you linked to, since I don't believe they are representing themselves the way you describe being a woman is all about in your italicized quote above. Plus, they do speak out against second wave feminism, which as I said earlier has been replaced with the third wave anyway.

The bulk of my disagreement with you as it regards women is over your concept of what being a woman is, as you describe in your italicized quote above, which you also said is your description of what you conceptualize a TS to be.

[SweetIonis]

Fair 'nuff, although I'm afraid that you and I simply won't come to a meeting of the minds on this. If you are ultimately talking about yourself I won't presume to tell you how you feel and if you feel you are TS, this is your call and perfectly valid. Please believe me when I say this.

And if you want to believe that I think that I am a TS then you are perfectly free to do so. You appear to have a knack for putting words in my mouth because I honestly believe there is an underlying hostility that is motivating you to do this. If you will recall I said I do not believe I am a TS. So please madame distinguished moderator, believe me when I say that. I mean it.

But if you are constructing a "what if" scenario, what you describe matches my definition of ultimate "pink fog", for lack of a better word. The TS's threads I read here do not describe being a woman to such a high degree of enthrallment or excitement as you do, in fact they all say it is just being normal and excitement free, much like anyone else who is not transgender, man or woman, feels while going about their normal lives. And it doesn't appear as if they hold stereotypical views of womanhood like you do in the quote below, which I also observe is shared by many other CDers here as well.

Enthrallment is in the eye of the beholder. Some people are enthralled with the notion that they are the gatekeepers of a world where they define what is right and what is wrong. They frequently practice a reverse type of patronizing chauvanism in which they police the thoughts and actions of others. Typically embittered from their experiences in life they go about engaging in hard hearted rhetoric and activities that are meant to elevate themselves from their embittered position by putting down those whom they feel do not fit in with their version of reality. Although many times they claim to be liberal and open minded, actually their nature resembles that of a religious fanatic bent on imposes their views on others.

Perhaps you are not like that, but if you are, that's tuff stuff.

I'll take back the word "submissive" if you like, and referring to your italicized quote just above, I'll substitute it for "being in a secondary, or subordinate role to her husband", in other words, she lives to cater to his whims and further, that she may well get a sexual charge out of doing this. However I do not know women who are like this.

Well I honestly appreciate the gesture in taking back submissive. Because honestly, it's not what I had in mind. But then you go about saying that she lives to cater to his every whim. I DID NOT SAY THAT. What you have done again is create a distortion. Perhaps you don't realize it, but some men and women both get pleasure from doing things that they feel please one another. Perhaps it is an unknown concept to you, but there is such a thing as deriving more pleasure from seeing the object of your affection pleased than actually doing things that are meant to give pleasure to one's self. That's the only concept that was put forward. Not that the woman is some genie in a bottle that simply says "yes master".

I do know couples who both dote on each other, who both do nice things for each other, but the activities they engage in are interchangeable. They are not so mired in the strict traditional roles you describe, not in this day and age. And in my view, any woman today who feels the way you describe above has given up her own drive for self-actualization in favor of catering to her husband. It's one thing for her to take on the responsibilities of running the household if this is what they decide, while he earns the salary, but her motive in doing this is as a full and equal partner in the relationship. She's just doing her job because it is their agreement, and the motives have nothing to do with keeping "her man happy when he comes home from a hard days work".

I am going to visit a couple this weekend that live just the way I describe. And the roles are what I described AND IT IS BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND IT IS AN EQUAL PARTNER RELATIONSHIP. The best married couple relationship I have seen. And everyone that I know that knows them says the same. And she does want her husband to be happy when he comes home from work. What cold hearted person would not want such a thing. The distortion here that you want to create is that this means that the woman is simply a slave and ONLY LIVES FOR THE SATISFACTION OF HER HUSBAND. That's your distortion, and if you really want to believe that's what I'm putting forward, again you are free to do so. But that's what I would call enthrallment in a typical feminist fantasy.

In terms of sexuality, yes it's true that women want to be touched and held, but again, I don't believe this is any different than men who also want to be touched and held.

Oh really? While there are certain common ways that men and women share in wanting to be touched, there are certain ways that MOST men do not want to be touched that many women would find stimulating. To say there is not a difference is a distortion.

Sex is a powerfully vulnerable experience for both women and men and other than specific D/s sexual relationships or other deep desires to be sexually dominant or submissive that really has nothing to do with gender (gay couples are D/s as well), thresholds are reached when two people are intimate that transcend any gender, period. They both reach nirvana and nirvana is gender free, at least it is for me. Also, men and women do engage in a variety of positions and acts during their love making sessions and it is simply not as one-sided as the impression I get from your description. Again, I think you are describing every CDer's fantasy of what it is like to be a woman.

Again, you may find it hard to believe, but not everyone in the world shares your gender free experience. And as an aside I'm going to say that some would find your use of the word nirvana to describe your experience to be repulsive. I don't personally because I think I know what you are trying to say, but just to let you know, there are persons would detest your use of that word to describe your experience. And thank you for letting me know that couples engage in a variety of positions. I didn't know that. All this poor soul has are CD fantasies to live with. Thank you for sharing that profound insight. BTW even lower animals engage in sex in different positions.

And last, again referring to your italicized quote above, the idea that women "want to feel pretty ALL THE TIME" is simply not realistic and again I believe it to be a CDer's dream.

Now here you have a valid point and that is surely a case of my being loose with words. Let's say the person in the scenario want's to present themselves as being pretty a substantial amount of time. Then on the other hand a person can be outwardly pretty but inwardly ugly. A person can be outwardly ugly but inwardly pretty. And then some are outwardly ugly and are just bitter and filled to the brim with hate and animosity. For them being pretty is just not on the horizon, no matter how you look at it.

There is not this constant background "thrill" in our psyches over wearing pantyhose, heels, lipstick or mascara, or feeling our long hair brush against our necks for example.

I never mentioned that anyone did. Perhaps this is a veiled attempt at venting some underlying hostility. Hope you feel good you got that off your chest!

The bulk of my disagreement with you as it regards women is over your concept of what being a woman is, as you describe in your italicized quote above, which you also said is your description of what you conceptualize a TS to be.

And I would say that you have your opinion. It's an opinion is surely based on constant distortion of my words. The question I have is, what is the underlying malice that is motivating those distortions?

[Starr]

Before i came to this site, i always consider myself a transvestite. To me a Crossdresser was a man who simple wore women clothes and made no attempt to be fem.. that was just my thinking at the the time i came here.. now i simple consider myself transgender, but as i have gotten more accpeting of being fem.. i am not sure i am not transexual. i work hard to be as fem as i can and i am attracted to men very much so... so guess i will see where this road goes.. someday i might just consider myself female...

[Speck]

SweetIonis,

In your earlier posts, you sounded genuinely interested in other people's perspective. In particular, I think you were trying to understand the term bi-gendered. Somewhere along the line things got pretty convoluted and it's no longer clear to me what your objective is. I don't have the time or inclination to re-read all the posts. At any rate, you seem to have become unglued. If you're looking for greater understanding or support, I would encourage you to start a new thread communicating as clearly as you possibly can. Please don't concern yourself with using complex vocabulary or getting the spelling right. That's not what matters here. You may want to consider a quote by Albert Einstein - "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Speck

[ReineD]

You appear to have a knack for putting words in my mouth because I honestly believe there is an underlying hostility that is motivating you to do this..

So please madame distinguished moderator, believe me when I say that.

Some people are enthralled with the notion that they are the gatekeepers of a world where they define what is right and what is wrong. They frequently practice a reverse type of patronizing chauvanism in which they police the thoughts and actions of others. Typically embittered from their experiences in life they go about engaging in hard hearted rhetoric and activities that are meant to elevate themselves from their embittered position by putting down those whom they feel do not fit in with their version of reality. Although many times they claim to be liberal and open minded, actually their nature resembles that of a religious fanatic bent on imposes their views on others. Perhaps you are not like that, but if you are, that's tuff stuff.

What you have done again is create a distortion.

That's your distortion, and if you really want to believe that's what I'm putting forward, again you are free to do so. But that's what I would call enthrallment in a typical feminist fantasy.

To say there is not a difference is a distortion.

And thank you for letting me know that couples engage in a variety of positions. I didn't know that. All this poor soul has are CD fantasies to live with. Thank you for sharing that profound insight. BTW even lower animals engage in sex in different positions.

Perhaps this is a veiled attempt at venting some underlying hostility. Hope you feel good you got that off your chest!

And I would say that you have your opinion. It's an opinion is surely based on constant distortion of my words. The question I have is, what is the underlying malice that is motivating those distortions?

I did my best to interpret your words in order to engage in a meaningful discussion. Apparently, you see my interpretation as a hostile, embittered, rhetorical, patronizing, chauvanistic, feministic, religious, and malicious distortion.

It is clear that we cannot communicate. I'm finished with this thread.

[SweetIonis]

SweetIonis,

In your earlier posts, you sounded genuinely interested in other people's perspective. In particular, I think you were trying to understand the term bi-gendered. Somewhere along the line things got pretty convoluted and it's no longer clear to me what your objective is. I don't have the time or inclination to re-read all the posts. At any rate, you seem to have become unglued. If you're looking for greater understanding or support, I would encourage you to start a new thread communicating as clearly as you possibly can. Please don't concern yourself with using complex vocabulary or getting the spelling right. That's not what matters here. You may want to consider a quote by Albert Einstein - "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."

Speck

I would say that the use of the term "binbow" to describe those who do not conform to the conceptualization of a woman that you wish to impose upon the world is not even worthy of the words "intelligent fool". There are other words that would be more descriptive. What those words are, I'll leave as an exercise.

I did my best to interpret your words in order to engage in a meaningful discussion. Apparently, you see my interpretation as a hostile, embittered, rhetorical, patronizing, chauvanistic, feministic, religious, and malicious distortion.

It is clear that we cannot communicate. I'm finished with this thread.

When an interpretation constantly contains the flaws of distortion of intent, it is no longer an interpretation, but rather an exercise meant to put forward a highly motivated agenda. The person responsible either deliberately engages in such activity or due to heavy emotional bias with regards to things like anger and envy cannot interpret properly. I noted and pointed out some of your distortions and hinted at a motivation. Motivation I could be wrong about. But the distortions, I was right on the money about. When you engage in that type of activity with regards to my words, I reserve the right to call it.

[Momarie]

Ionis:

"When an interpretation constantly contains the flaws of distortion of intent, it is no longer an interpretation, but rather an exercise meant to put forward a highly motivated agenda. The person responsible either deliberately engages in such activity or due to heavy emotional bias with regards to things like anger and envy cannot interpret properly. I noted and pointed out some of your distortions and hinted at a motivation. Motivation I could be wrong about. But the distortions, I was right on the money about. When you engage in that type of activity with regards to my words, I reserve the right to call it."

You couldn't be more wrong about someone.

She is one of the most thoughtful, well balanced, supportive, patient women on this site.
She's the kind of person whose natural niceness is eclipsed only by her absolute lack of hostility.

[SweetIonis]

Ionis:

"When an interpretation constantly contains the flaws of distortion of intent, it is no longer an interpretation, but rather an exercise meant to put forward a highly motivated agenda. The person responsible either deliberately engages in such activity or due to heavy emotional bias with regards to things like anger and envy cannot interpret properly. I noted and pointed out some of your distortions and hinted at a motivation. Motivation I could be wrong about. But the distortions, I was right on the money about. When you engage in that type of activity with regards to my words, I reserve the right to call it."

You couldn't be more wrong about someone.

She is one of the most thoughtful, well balanced, supportive, patient women on this site.
She's the kind of person whose natural niceness is eclipsed only by her absolute lack of hostility.

That's quite possible because I really don't know her. But for sure she took my words and distorted them and that's an indisputable fact. The tone was set right off the bat when she conjectured/implied that I thought I was a TS, after I clearly said that I do not think of myself in that way. There was NOTHING in my words that implied that I thought I was. And since she took the liberty to go that far out in her interpretation, I felt I was at liberty to offer an interpretation on motive, and although you say I'm wrong, and I said previously, and will admit again that I COULD BE WRONG, at this point I don't THINK I am. She said what she felt, I said what I felt about it. I honestly don't hate her for it. Actually I still like her believe it or not. I think she exercises quite a bit of restraint, more than most of the people that I come in contact with. But that said, I really haven't seen anything to make me feel any differently about what was said. So that's where we stand.

[Rianna Humble]

Reine, first things first. Since your opinion on the matter of whether the person was a TS or not was briefly stated, without much discussion I will simply respond that if I walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I can discuss that concept of how a person could start out not being a TS and end up there in much greater detail. I may actually do so with a more detailed scenario later.

If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may yet be a cygnet - or have you forgotten the lessons of Hans Christian Anderson?

It is hardly surprising that there was little discussion in that specific post by Reine, although you appear to have deliberately overlooked every attempt at discussion by her and by others to which you have consistently responded by ignoring the experience of others and pushing your so far unsubstantiated pavlovian theory.

I said previously, and will admit again that I COULD BE WRONG, at this point I don't THINK I am.

Here is the nub of the problem when people try to communicate with you - you pay lip servie to the concept that you could be wrong but in reality you act as if everyone else was wrong and only you are in the right.
Welcome to my ignore list

[SweetIonis]

Welcome to my ignore list

If that makes you feel better fair enough. Believe me there is no love lost from my side.

[Kaitlyn Michele]

as far as mtf...
conditioned into believing you are female? i guess anything is possible.
but that's about as far as it goes. and it's not relevant to transsexualism

the idea that you can get turned into a woman by conditioning is a common cd fantasy by the way... and you can buy "hypnosis" programs that i'm sure people here have bought..

transsexual is something that you are born with. you may cope with it in a way that hide's your nature from yourself, you may act in ways to hide your ts nature at all costs (even while secretly cd'ing)..and this is especially true if you are a big burly guy, or you know you would never be able to remotely look like a woman... building confidence by crossdressing and seeking positive reinforcement seems quite logical for those of us that want or need to transition.. but its not the other way around...

being your own gender is a fundamental human experience..it's not like wanting ice cream instead of sorbet.
no amount of conditioning can make a ts feel they are not ts, why should it be the other way around...

[Dealight]

It's kind of funny how we, as well as the rest of the human race, get caught up in labels. Can't help it sometimes...though we try to avoid it, don't we? I know in my area, where there is a large GLBT community, the name game can get very confusing. I think by appropriate definition, we do all fall into the larger "Transgender" category - those whose interests lie in being at one point or another different from our birth gender. In our area, because the term "TG" is often meant to refer to transexuals (those transforming into the opposite gender via hormones, surgery or both), I often just refer to myself as a CD, because it's a little more precise. But sometimes I'll call myself a "Trans" in the right company. BTW, I am a heterosexual CD.
I have become more and more enamored of the idea that we are all people first...human beings with real thoughts and feelings and yes, desires..... rather than a categorized fish in the appropriate pond.... I have so many friends from so many different ponds!
And yet, as I said, we still use labels for various reasons.........Anyway...just a few thoughts.......

[SweetIonis]

the idea that you can get turned into a woman by conditioning is a common cd fantasy by the way...

There are some that say that the idea that someone is born being a female in a male body is a fabricated fantasy, BTW.

[SweetIonis]

I thought it would be a good exercise to explore the idea that it is possible for a person to change their gender identification through the process of operant conditioning at length. The discussion will be continued in THIS THREAD

[Starling]

I don't think it's possible to explore whether operant conditioning can change gender identification without actually conducting experiments. But I'll go further and say that I believe gender identification is part of the BIOS, and not of the programming, to use a computer metaphor. And my own experience from a very early age inclines me to accept the current medical theory that GID is caused by anomalous hormonal events in the womb.

Operant conditioning generally functions to train us to conceal our true identity and act like average boys and girls. Then, over many years it becomes emotionally and physically exhausting to carry on a double life like that, and in extremis one either integrates or terminates. Or, I guess, vegetates.

Lallie

[Rianna Humble]

Hi Lallie, I think you are right, but don't hold your breath waiting for Ionis to accept the validity of your point of view, he is not interested in discussion