Who's fooling who?

[curse within]

I have all the clothing to dress as female as I want to.. I don't have all the makeup or the skills to apply the makeup to complete the full look of attempted female head to toe look.. I do wear whatever I deem wanting to wear to complete the want to look or feel like I want to look or feel.. I don't think of myself as a full cross dresser but feel like there really is no category to place me in.. like a guy who likes to wear panties only, is he a cross dresser?? or a guy who wears high heeled shoes, is he a cross dresser?? where does the definition of cross dresser begin??

IMO.... As I am sure many others may agree just as some disagree.. ....A (Crossdresser) should be as it applies..One who wears clothing belonging to a different sex (gender) that gains personal satisfaction in doing so, self gradifacation.. A Crossdresser is not one who emulates or protrays the sex one was not born as..Socially we assign clothing that is deemed male and female and varies in culture.. As some may point out in wearing female clothing you are emulating or inpersonating a female..That is not always true and depends on how often or what extremes one may take ( do you dress daily ? 3 times a week? once a month?).. I would suggest daily or 3 times a week you are emulating a female..


So if you are emulatining or desire to become a female ...Than that would IMO be leaning towards a Trans sexual.....So let the stoning start...

[battybattybats]

While everyone is aware of the various categories in the race example you cite, most people outside of the community have had such limited exposure to transgender that there is almost a universal lack of understanding. At most they are aware of one or two examples which then leads to many of the stereotypes we are constantly combatting. The categories in the race example apply to everyone. Those in the transgender example apply to a very small minority.

Ah, but most people have no idea about the racial and cultural diversity of China for example. From Han to Hmong and so many many more!

Contrary to your concluding paragraph, I think that exposure to transgender without a clear cut system of classification of the sub groups can lead to more confusion and misunderstanding rather than an understanding. I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of dispute, but I have observed and read about instances where this is the case.

Ithas to be significant exposure though. Exposure to diversity of transgender.

The simple fact that we are such a small minority, means that we are something entirely outside the expected norm.

1 in 50 is not so small a minority though.

For example, while we recognize that occasionally someone may murder their children, and we can even discover and understand their motive for doing so, we cannot understand the underlying element of their psyche that could lead them to such a dastardly deed. I am not equating crossdressing with anything like that, and most people realize that it is harmless; nonetheless many people (including ourselves) have a similar difficulty understanding the underlying psyche that makes us want to crossdress.

But most people dont understand any underlying psychology of anything! If its something they experience that is generally accepted they accept it unquestionsingly. If it is something they dont share but is generally accepted so they are used to it being around they may be curious about it but still accept it.

It is the anti gender-variance culture that is responsible for the problem. In Samoa they didnt understand the underlying psychology to have their third crossdressing sex. In Native North America they used terms like two-spirit to explain it but the point remains true. It was there, people accepted it.

Thus I think that blanket terminology can be more confusing than specifics. Those who are close to us, realize in most cases, that there is a wide spectrum, but it is not sufficient for them to know that we exist somewhere on that spectrum; they want and have a right to know the exact location and whether it is moving in either direction.

I think there is an overstepping there. Firstly if the public sees a variety they will understand variety. As for people and rights to know that is a dodgy conclusion! Certainly its ideal for a partner etc to have some idea where things are going but that is not always possible to know! And something being ideal does not equal a right!

A person of sound adult mind only belongs to themselves. No-one else has a say over them. Not parents or children or spouses or siblings or coworkers or employers or friends etc. From a haircut to piercings to body modification to keeping a pregnancy others dont want them to keep, all these things are a matter of what is called Bodily Autonomy aka Somatic Sovereignty. That is a fundamental human right!

The trend in the community to downplay the labels in favour of the umbrella makes it more difficult to explain our own selves and to be understood. As one who dislikes most of the current labels, I realize that I am contributing to the problem, but am not aware of the solution.

We dont need to downplay the subgroup labels to support the umbrella. You can be a crossdresser-transgender or perhaps a transgender-crossdresser.

The reason the umbrella is utterly vital though is all the 'yes, but' people! The politicians who will support one subgroup but not others, the various haters amongst our on subgroups that want rights for themselves but not everyone else such as the HBS TSs for example that actively fight CD rights and try and get CDing excluded from TS supporting laws!

Or the anti TS folk amongst some CDs, the anti drag people and homophobes amongst the others too!

So to get progress on all the issues, to stymy the 'phobes amongst the subgroups we need the umbrella!

[curse within]

We dont need to downplay the subgroup labels to support the umbrella. You can be a crossdresser-transgender or perhaps a transgender-crossdresser.

The reason the umbrella is utterly vital though is all the 'yes, but' people! The politicians who will support one subgroup but not others, the various haters amongst our on subgroups that want rights for themselves but not everyone else such as the HBS TSs for example that actively fight CD rights and try and get CDing excluded from TS supporting laws!

Or the anti TS folk amongst some CDs, the anti drag people and homophobes amongst the others too!

So to get progress on all the issues, to stymy the 'phobes amongst the subgroups we need the umbrella!

I agree for many reasons not to mention strength in numbers, however when the umbrella opens it has to cover all equally..

[KimberlyS]

Batty, I agree with you very much so. I also personally include the intersexed in with the transgender spectrum. And to carry it even farther the transgender spectrum mixes with the male - female spectrum. Yes there are many very masculine males and very feminine females. But if one really sits down and looks at people there is a spectrum from the very masculine males to the very feminine females. And I am not just talking looks, but also in things we like, personalities, and traits.

IMHO we need to move beyond the fact that we are special. We need to accept we are just normal variations in the human development process. If we keep saying we are special then we need to classify our selves to others can deal with us. I just consider myself normal.

kim

[Veronica27]

... A Crossdresser is not one who emulates or protrays the sex one was not born as..Socially we assign clothing that is deemed male and female and varies in culture.. As some may point out in wearing female clothing you are emulating or inpersonating a female..That is not always true and depends on how often or what extremes one may take

So if you are emulatining or desire to become a female ...Than that would IMO be leaning towards a Trans sexual.....So let the stoning start...

The assigning of clothing also includes makeup, jewelry, hair styles and so on. Even with the inclusion of these items, I agree that you are not necessarily emulating or expressing a desire to be female, as these are all just a part of the external image that society assigns to each sex.

Actors can emulate and impersonate a female, and be extremely passable in doing so, but nobody assumes that they are TS, TG or even a CD because of this, with no other evidence that they in fact are. I think that the only difference between them and many CD's is that the actor's motive is his occupation while the CD's motive is his personal enjoyment. What I am saying is that I don't agree that the frequency and extent of the dressing are the primary indicators of whether the person leans towards TG or TS, but rather it is his state of mind when he is dressing. Does he maintain his male state of mind, or does his dressing involve more than the external facade and involve attempting to think like and actually become a woman in his own mind. I believe it is not so much how others see him, but how he sees himself. It is all highly subjective, and opinions vary greatly on this issue.

Veronica

[Annie D]

If you spend much time reading the threads and the replies on this forum, one can quickly realize that we are all so different in our perceptions about ourselves and how we feel about what we are doing. I believe that each of us spends quite a bit of time thinking about from where we started, how we have evolved to where we are now and tried to predict where we are going. I know that I have and when I try to think about what Annie will be like in 2 or 5 or 10 years from now, I know that it will not be linear but a reaction of the events that occur between now and then.

Will I be different if I am outed? Would would I do if suddenly I found myself single through some castastrophic event to my family? Sometimes I think that each one of us should ask those types of questions to ourselves.....What if? There are no set answers to what we are or what we will become because each of us are different and we react to what happens to us differently.

I appreciate what everyone has contributed and each of you have given me food for thought. Thank you!

[AmandaM]

<<Most of the discussion of these issues here involves people being either TS or CD. The rest are very very very rarely mentioned.>>

Amen.

[Veronica27]

Ah, but most people have no idea about the racial and cultural diversity of China for example. From Han to Hmong and so many many more!

I alluded to this in my opening paragraph with somewhat different wording.

Ithas to be significant exposure though. Exposure to diversity of transgender.

I think we are saying something very similar here, but I am emphasizing the classifications while you are emphasizing significant and diversity.

1 in 50 is not so small a minority though.

Poll results are inconclusive for many reasons. 50 to 1 is a long shot in a horse race. If you include every man who has ever tried on an item of female clothing, the percentage is probably in the 90's. 55% can be a big majority in an election. And so on. Let's not argue what is "small"

But most people dont understand any underlying psychology of anything! If its something they experience that is generally accepted they accept it unquestionsingly. If it is something they dont share but is generally accepted so they are used to it being around they may be curious about it but still accept it.

It is the anti gender-variance culture that is responsible for the problem. In Samoa they didnt understand the underlying psychology to have their third crossdressing sex. In Native North America they used terms like two-spirit to explain it but the point remains true. It was there, people accepted it.

No disagreement there.

I think there is an overstepping there. Firstly if the public sees a variety they will understand variety. As for people and rights to know that is a dodgy conclusion! Certainly its ideal for a partner etc to have some idea where things are going but that is not always possible to know! And something being ideal does not equal a right!

A person of sound adult mind only belongs to themselves. No-one else has a say over them. Not parents or children or spouses or siblings or coworkers or employers or friends etc. From a haircut to piercings to body modification to keeping a pregnancy others dont want them to keep, all these things are a matter of what is called Bodily Autonomy aka Somatic Sovereignty. That is a fundamental human right!

I disagree with you on these two paragraphs. Firstly, the public may come to accept variety through exposure, but I don't think it automatically leads to understanding, but in fact can lead to confusion. As for rights to know, the word rights may not be the correct one in the sense of "human rights", but in the absence of a more suitable term, I think it is appropriate. There are a multitude of meanings to the word right, and my dictionary begins with "in accordance with what is good, proper or just". I feel that in many instances such as a marriage, it is much more of a right than an ideal. Also, I don't believe we can make sweeping generalizations about bodily autonomy. What exactily is a sound adult mind? Age, alcohol or drug consumption, stress and many other factors can all impact upon such a determination. The law in many jurisdictions now requires the staff in a bar or restaurant to have a say over whether or not someone has had too much to drink. Also, parents are the primary caregivers to their children. At what age, and for what decisions does this apply? Aging parents, who are otherwise of sound adult mind, often lose their autonomy when their offspring have to step in and make decisions about their welfare. If a person belongs only to themselves, then the concept of human rights becomes somewhat redundant, because responsibility would also end with oneself, and rights for anyone implies a certain responsibility on the part of others, if for no other reason than to leave them alone.

We dont need to downplay the subgroup labels to support the umbrella. You can be a crossdresser-transgender or perhaps a transgender-crossdresser.

The reason the umbrella is utterly vital though is all the 'yes, but' people! The politicians who will support one subgroup but not others, the various haters amongst our on subgroups that want rights for themselves but not everyone else such as the HBS TSs for example that actively fight CD rights and try and get CDing excluded from TS supporting laws!

Or the anti TS folk amongst some CDs, the anti drag people and homophobes amongst the others too!

So to get progress on all the issues, to stymy the 'phobes amongst the subgroups we need the umbrella!

The labels do tend to get downplayed or else are disputed by most who post on a forum such as this. They are not defined in any finite way, and as such are open to interpretation, and people do not want to be misunderstood because of the application of an inappropriate label or a misconception as to its meaning.

In the absence of emotional or personal factors, I can see the value to an umbrella term, especially if the objective is fighting for rights. However, we are such a varied community, that the "rights" we seek can differ widely. Concentrating on the larger picture can make one oblivious to specific needs, just as an overemphasis on one's own position, can lead to unawareness of a wider more general goal. I don't wish to offend, but I see a repeated use of the word "phobia" in your postings, when referencing differences in opinion, or someone's attempt to promote their own specific cause. The differences that exist among us, and our own agendas usually have nothing to do with fear, dread or aversion toward anyone else and their position. I simply see the TG rights movement as being similar in nature to the desires of the individual elements within the community to pursue their own goals through support, but on a much larger scale and through political activism. If we expand upon some of the inclusions of TG that have been mentioned in other posts to also include those who have had thoughts about what life as the other sex would be like and those who have tried various clothing items or activities usually reserved for the opposite sex, the TG movement would no longer be in the minority and people would be persuing hetero/unigender rights.

All the best

Veronica

[2b.Lauren]

I think Jonianne said it best. There is an aweful lot of vacillation regarding my own experience with dressing. Most of the time I am satisfied being under dressed. Other times I just don't feel like anything at all. When I do get the chance to dress fully and maybe get out and about I am purely in heaven. I have not seriously thought about SRS since I was much younger and when I do lately there is an air of being highly realistic on my own part. I just feel it is more important to embrace the point I am in right now. Just by virtue of our dressing in the first place we are people who like and look for change. We change ourselves anytime we dress, that does not me that we are less likely for whatever reason to change back. When I am fully dressed I think wow I could do this full time. Many feel that both their male lives and female lives are very rewarding to them and that is what prevents them from seeking surgery. For me it is different in that I don't get as much pleasure from my male life. There are many things absent as a male for me, but even then I am not sure that surgery or declaring my status as TS would change that, it would most likely complicate things even more. Like others have said, it depends on my mood, what is going on at the time, how long my chain is that day, and so on, as to what I am thinking regarding my CD or TS lifestyle.

[curse within]

I don't agree that the frequency and extent of the dressing are the primary indicators of whether the person leans towards TG or TS, but rather it is his state of mind when he is dressing. Does he maintain his male state of mind, or does his dressing involve more than the external facade and involve attempting to think like and actually become a woman in his own mind. I believe it is not so much how others see him, but how he sees himself. It is all highly subjective, and opinions vary greatly on this issue.

I can understand your stance on this but a valid point I left out was the state of mind, is this person emulating the oposite sex and how often? Also yes, how one see's themself is key but would also or can be confussed with his/her sexual identity.. There for leaning towards a transsexual. One could find the path through dressing as a female with make-up ,forms and mind set and doing it often..

IMHO .....It is rare a crossdresser who is married with children expressing any traits openly and often by emulating the oposite gender one was born as, to be found anything other than a Trans sexual..

[Nicki B]

A Crossdresser is not one who emulates or protrays the sex one was not born as..

No stones - but that can't always be true. Someone who crossdresses may do so for many motives and one can't decide which ones are or aren't valid? Even the actor previously mentioned is 'crossdressing'?

Surely you're talking about states of mind, for which other terms might be better suited?

IMHO .....It is rare a crossdresser who is married with children expressing any traits openly and often by emulating the oposite gender one was born as, to be found anything other than a Trans sexual..

Rare???? Not IME.

[Emily Anderson]

This appears to me that you are implying that I am very narrow minded in my approach to TGism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This thread has got nothing to do with the differences from one end of the TG spectrum to the other, more to how much people are "fooling" themselves, hence the title "Who's fooling Who?

Without going through past posts, profiles and all the other information, I am unable to "name names", but a large number of people here do contradict themselves in many ways.

To be a woman is not to be a crossdresser, to be a woman is to be a gender.

I think the point of Batty's post is that there are all sorts who makes up this world, and to add to that, as far as who is fooling who is concerned, it also depends on who you are addressing.

That is, some CD's live in a deluded fantasy world, some crossdress for fun, some for sex, some because they feel compelled, some because they feel they were born into the wrong body etc. etc. Some enjoy being male, some want to be female, some enjoy the duality of body and mind etc. etc.

And guess what? Some CD's feel some, none, or all of the above under different circumstances, and at different times in their lives.

The question is simply to broad, and you will never find an answer.

We're humans after all

[Raychel]

Bloke in a Frock, nothing more nothing less,,,, Yup that pretty much explains me.

[curse within]

Thanks for starting this interesting post, I feel even tho this isn't something people want to talk about but it is something that needs pointed out..

Could it be that some of us are more in the closet than we like to believe to not accept the spectrum (label) we fall under?

Can it be possiable that actors crossdress because it is part of the role they accepted in doing thier job and nothing more, some wear policeman uniforms that doesn't make them a police officer and in public if you are not an actor or a police officer it could get you arrested..

What is so hard about accepting the label you fall under? I mean after all just who are you really fooling?

I still suggest that labeling within a spectrum can lead to a better understanding.. We see it in just about everything we buy to ensure you get what you pay for..We sell ourselves daily by just being ourselves, so with less confussion and a better understanding would it be fair to say we are already labeled by others? Wouldn't you rather have the correct label applied to who you really are and not be mistaken ?

[battybattybats]

I disagree with you on these two paragraphs. Firstly, the public may come to accept variety through exposure, but I don't think it automatically leads to understanding, but in fact can lead to confusion.

Short term sure, but long term? Women as equals was pretty radical and it didnt take long for most people to accept that once it finally got going. Why would people not just grow to accept it?

As for rights to know, the word rights may not be the correct one in the sense of "human rights", but in the absence of a more suitable term, I think it is appropriate. There are a multitude of meanings to the word right, and my dictionary begins with "in accordance with what is good, proper or just".

Sure, its a matter of semantics of terminology.

I feel that in many instances such as a marriage, it is much more of a right than an ideal.

There is a point where ethically there can be an obligation to disclosure. For example if one partner is invlved in a risky activity where the other may suffer because of it. Such as having unprotected sex with others where the spouse may be infected with an STD. But there are enough situations where privacy even from aspouse is justified we cannot consider it in general a right to know everything.

Also, I don't believe we can make sweeping generalizations about bodily autonomy.

I'm yet to hear of a single exception so till I do it's not a generalisation but a fundamental universal human right. But lets see what you bring up...

What exactily is a sound adult mind? Age, alcohol or drug consumption, stress and many other factors can all impact upon such a determination.

Oh indeed! Thats why we have to consider that some people are 'dependant'. Such as the mentally ill, children, the senile, the brain damaged, the drunk or drug-addled, the comatose etc.

The law in many jurisdictions now requires the staff in a bar or restaurant to have a say over whether or not someone has had too much to drink. Also, parents are the primary caregivers to their children.

Absolutely. These are all people in states of impaired or unformed capacity to make fully informed decisions or clear judgement. Making those capable of such dependant on preserving their safety and safeguarding their rights.

At what age, and for what decisions does this apply?

In theory Science can tell us that.

Aging parents, who are otherwise of sound adult mind, often lose their autonomy when their offspring have to step in and make decisions about their welfare.

Indeed. This is the social-contract portion of rights. Where those capable of judgement are obliged to those incapable.

If a person belongs only to themselves, then the concept of human rights becomes somewhat redundant, because responsibility would also end with oneself, and rights for anyone implies a certain responsibility on the part of others, if for no other reason than to leave them alone.

Actually this is a fundamental factor in the notion of rights, how egalitarianism does not mean anarchy. Yes, everyone does have a responsibility to everyone else, from enlightened self interest in order to safeguard their own rights as well as to claim their rights to protection, to the mutual benefits of living in a society.

But something really important needs to be considered when it comes to dependance. That the carer does not own the cared for, that they cannot make any decision they think would be best for the cared for from their own personal perspective but instead need to consider the potential future choices of the cared-for. Even with dementia the possibility of future treatments can never be discounted. So choices should be made not just to maximise the comfort of the cared-for but their capacity to choose later.

A good example of this is an Intersex baby. A parent and/or doctor may think the child would be better off 'normal' and thus conclude that genital surgery would be in the childs best interest. But to do this a decision is made for the child as to whether they should be a boy or girl. Often enough the child grows up to be quite distraught at this decision.. making the decision wrong!

Wheras allowing the child to make their own decision when old ebough to legally give consent to the surgery and to decide if to have any and whether they are a boy a girl or both or neither is maximising the childs free choice once they are able to choose. Therefore that must be the priority.

This has lots of implications on lots of things like circumcision and other ritual body modification. And there arecertainly times where a decision must be made on a childs behalf. But this principle does insist that circumcision of children, unneccessary genital surgery of children, forced undelayed puberty of TG children and lots lots more are wrong.

So someone who has responsibility over a dependant can't decide whatever they want for another, not a barman deciding that a drunk would be better off with a shaved head and empty wallet or a parent deciding that a child should undergo unneccessary surgery. Instead they have an obligation to the rights of the cared-for so long as they are unable to do so for themselves.

In the absence of emotional or personal factors, I can see the value to an umbrella term, especially if the objective is fighting for rights. However, we are such a varied community, that the "rights" we seek can differ widely.

Sure but there are always crossovers. A TS kid and Intersex kid both need protection from unethical treatment like denial of hormone blockers for one and foced genital surgery for the other. While all three need protection from Zuker-style therapy. I've not yet run into any one issue that has no equivalent with at least one other TG group. A TS needs to have their ID match their inner sex/transitioned sex, an IS may need a neutral one especially as a child, a CD needs not to be discriminated against for not having their presentation match the sex marker expectation on their ID.

Concentrating on the larger picture can make one oblivious to specific needs, just as an overemphasis on one's own position, can lead to unawareness of a wider more general goal.

Now that is an important point. Plenty within any community need to be aware of minorities and subgroups within their community. We need to consider our own diversity. Otherwise we risk harming one group in order to reduce the harm of another as happened to Lesbians in the womens Rights movement and plenty more examples.

I don't wish to offend, but I see a repeated use of the word "phobia" in your postings, when referencing differences in opinion, or someone's attempt to promote their own specific cause. The differences that exist among us, and our own agendas usually have nothing to do with fear, dread or aversion toward anyone else and their position.

I advise you to look at the statements of those i was referring to when mentioning that. Many of the most vocal supporters of HBS on the net for example literally espouse hate of crossdressers and other TG people. Even of many transsexuals that do not fit their extreme definition of 'True Transsexuals'! These are people who actively attempt to exclude other TG people from being covered by various legislations! Now if you want people to recatagorise homophobia and transphobia without the term phobia and replace it with something greek or latin for irrational hatred thats one thing. If you think i have not used the term aptly though by all means point that out as I can always be wrong and make mistakes.

But I assure you, when it comes to the comments of many of the HBS movement as well as many of the Radical Feminists in both Lesbian and straight communities, when it comes to the Gays especially the group who excluded Sylvia Rivera from Stonewall commemorations and falsely claimed there were no TS, IS DQ or TG people at Stonewall there have been plenty of statements of clear hatred. You can find plenty of these examples scattered across the net.

I simply see the TG rights movement as being similar in nature to the desires of the individual elements within the community to pursue their own goals through support, but on a much larger scale and through political activism. If we expand upon some of the inclusions of TG that have been mentioned in other posts to also include those who have had thoughts about what life as the other sex would be like and those who have tried various clothing items or activities usually reserved for the opposite sex, the TG movement would no longer be in the minority and people would be persuing hetero/unigender rights.

From a human rights perspective though arent the more universally applicable a right is the more likely it is to be valid? TheYogyakarta Principles for example cover alomst all TG issues solidly based on nothing more than full rather than partial application of the principles of the 60 year old UN Convention on universal Human Rights.

Just as IS children and TG children and Cis children would all be protected by the same right when it comes to genital surgery, hormone blocker access and circumcision so to is the case for all TG issues surely?

Another example is that adding gender expression to employment non-discrimination would not just protect TSs from being fired or CDs who get outed away from work for being fired but it would also protect everyone else such as the woman fired from her job as a hairdresser for cutting her hair too short and not wearing enough make-up!

Over-specification of rights and legislation can leave great gaps of injustice for many to slip through, whereas when made as broad as possible, when shown to cover as many as possible and apply to many different cases then there is a broad principle that operates well across everyone fairly. So I think hetero/unigender issues are apt rather than a problem. Its only when one groups needs are considered valid and others invalid regardless of all being based on the same principle that you get problems, like the more 'normal' parts of a community throwing the strnager ones 'under the bus' in order to get their own acceptance.

[Sheila]

Short term sure, but long term? Women as equals was pretty radical and it didnt take long for most people to accept that once it finally got going. Why would people not just grow to accept it?

[SIZE="3"] you are joking !!!!!! ..... we still have not been fully accepted as equals[/SIZE]

[AliceJaneInNewcastle]

IMHO .....It is rare a crossdresser who is married with children expressing any traits openly and often by emulating the oposite gender one was born as, to be found anything other than a Trans sexual..

I guess you must be living in a different reality to me. A significant number of crossdressers that I know are heterosexual, married with children and not transsexual. I include myself in that.

Over the past few days of reading these forums, I've been trying to work out if I actually belong here. I'm quite perplexed.

Alice

[Veronica27]

Over-specification of rights and legislation can leave great gaps of injustice for many to slip through, whereas when made as broad as possible, when shown to cover as many as possible and apply to many different cases then there is a broad principle that operates well across everyone fairly.

I am a Canadian, and I am old enough to remember when then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker introduced Canada's first Bill of Rights in the early 1960's, as well as the more recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted by P.M. Pierre Trudeau as a part of Canada's new constitution in the early 1980's. Both faced a considerable amount of debate, with much of it relating to the fact that such rights were implied in the system of British Common Law which had its roots in the Magna Carta, along with the British Bill of Rights of 1689, The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and several other acts which form the basis of the British constitution, as well as the Statute of Westminister which applied such law to Canada. The argument against both the Bill and the Charter was along the lines of what you have stated in the above quote with the exception that it was being applied to rights in general rather than a specific area such as TG or Gay. It was argued that the spelling out of any specific rights or the application to any specific group would create the injustices you have mentioned because of possible ommisions. This opposition lost out, of course, in both cases because each P.M. enjoyed a majority in Parliament. It should be noted that the Charter has led to many court decisions being required, and amendments to the Charter to cover various omissions. As well, it has led to each Province enacting its own Bill of Rights, to cover items not necessarily specified in the Charter that fall under Provincial jusisdiction.

I mention this, not so much for argument's sake, but to point out the irony that I see between the transgender all inclusive stance of today, and the opposition of the Canadian traditionalists in the 1960's and 1980's who felt that such rights were already protected under British Common Law. Both seem to be opposed to the over specification of rights, but in one case it was to oppose civil rights legislation, while in the other case it is to expand upon civil rights legislation. It should also be noted that Britain finally passed its own human rights act in 1998 in response in part to the pressures brought about by the European Union to comply with the European community.

All the best

Veronica

[curse within]

I guess you must be living in a different reality to me. A significant number of crossdressers that I know are heterosexual, married with children and not transsexual. I include myself in that.

Over the past few days of reading these forums, I've been trying to work out if I actually belong here. I'm quite perplexed.

Alice

Sorry , I don't know you didn't mean it personally.

Would be fair to say then you are basically living your life as a female? ..Yes Transsexual.....Sorry hate me be mad whatever . Let me guess could it be possiable you were born a lesbian in a male body?

[Nigella]

Sorry , I don't know you didn't mean it personally.

Would be fair to say then you are basically living your life as a female? ..Yes Transsexual.....Sorry hate me be mad whatever . Let me guess could it be possiable you were born a lesbian in a male body?

I was going to question your supposition that because someone lives their lives as a female they are Transsexual, TBH I do live 24/7 but consider myself a cross dresser, however, after researching the meaning of Transsexual, I am ready to conceed that I am Transsexual. You learn something new each day

As for the supposition that a transsexual could be a lesbian in a male body, that doesn't hold water, or at least I will say in my case, I am and will remain genetically male, therefore I can't be a lesbian because:

a. I aint got a clue where lesbos is

b. I am in a hetrosexual relationship not a homosexual one i.e the relationship is genetically male and female, not female and female.

[Karren H]

Hell I don't know what I am... but then again I don't care what you call it... I call it FUN!!

[battybattybats]

[SIZE="3"] you are joking !!!!!! ..... we still have not been fully accepted as equals[/SIZE]

I said most, you say fully, the words are different. And no I wasnt joking, and I do agree that those who still do not accept are an obstacle to full equality for women. The payscale issue is an example and yet theres been more than a few women elected as heads of state now. The majority has been one over sufficiently for that but the war is far from won certainly.

So yes, most. But not yet fully, a goal every person should strive for.

I mention this, not so much for argument's sake, but to point out the irony that I see between the transgender all inclusive stance of today, and the opposition of the Canadian traditionalists in the 1960's and 1980's who felt that such rights were already protected under British Common Law. Both seem to be opposed to the over specification of rights, but in one case it was to oppose civil rights legislation, while in the other case it is to expand upon civil rights legislation. It should also be noted that Britain finally passed its own human rights act in 1998 in response in part to the pressures brought about by the European Union to comply with the European community.

Ah but theres a difference between specifying universal rights and in specifying specific rights to specific groups. Easy example:

Outlawying discrimination including in law against actual or perceived gender identity and expression. Thats general. It covers every human being. Wheras a law that says that post-operative transsexuals after dislaying proof of surgery hormones and utter sterility and a signed document from a consulting government approved psychiatrist cannot be denied access to an emergency shelter is very very specific.

But the first one covers the second one and the second one definately does not remotely cover the first.

And if the principles of rights are enshrined first and foremost then the specific universal rights follow and then legislative measures allowed for gap-plugging where application of those rights and principles is not sufficiently realised then things are much better covered.

[curse within]

I was going to question your supposition that because someone lives their lives as a female they are Transsexual, TBH I do live 24/7 but consider myself a cross dresser, however, after researching the meaning of Transsexual, I am ready to conceed that I am Transsexual. You learn something new each day

As for the supposition that a transsexual could be a lesbian in a male body, that doesn't hold water, or at least I will say in my case, I am and will remain genetically male, therefore I can't be a lesbian because:

a. I aint got a clue where lesbos is

b. I am in a hetrosexual relationship not a homosexual one i.e the relationship is genetically male and female, not female and female.

Thanks,

I am really not trying to be an azz,,,,sometimes it's like taking a thousand lashes to be called a Transsexual...Its not but the fact of the meaning is just as applied....I am glad someone can say they are one without question of the definition..Yes you are a Crossdresser, no doubt ...But as the labels extend so do the meanings...Not a bad thing and does lead to a better understanding , that is my only point ..That's all...No you don't have to be Gay to be a Transsexual...But maybe if more question this the more in depth I can get..Trust me there is more as far as sexuality and question of gender..

[jessielee]

dear Nigella,
what a fascinating thread this has been!
Bats is right on as ever, and i so appreciate all the other perspectives.
i realise this was addressed right out of the chutes (began to say "right off the bat") but i like to add my own perspective that perhaps few of us are fooling anyone or are trying to. we are spread out all along a continuum. call me naive, but perhaps most of us are searching, experimenting, questing and trying the best we can
to express and or find ourselves in a muddle we didn't ask to be in.
but as for the oft revistited idea on this forum that perhaps few would really want to be magically transformed to be a woman if it were possible, that the novelty would be not enough if dressing up and doing all the gg routine were truly routine, we wouldn't really opt for it?
no fooling, i would.
here i am, Mr. Rourke, let me have it,
even if it is a "drag." my eyes are wide open
and i want it. no srs for me, too far gone i'm afraid. but Fantasy Island was invoked.
and i would have the transformation.
please.