Some labels do not include trans in the definition

[Kobi]

Hey apretty,

I think I am hearing what you are saying. Theoretically, it is plausible that if one says they are thus and so, we should just take it as they know best....end of process.

I just dont think people, in reality work that way. We were given senses and intuition and gut feelings to help us navigate our way in life. It is a human thing to look at something, anything, and give it our own spin. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we dont. We might not verbalize the process but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

You say identity is not up for debate. [i don't understand the process of going from learning about someone's identity and then doing a little 'remodeling' of that (however internal the process), and ending up at some 'conclusion'].

Ok so explain this to me. If you meet a woman who says she is a lesbian but she is married to a male, living with him, and still sleeping with him, do you not have an internal process that says....ok you can call yourself whatever you want but I have some serious reservations about this and it doesnt say lesbian to me.

My point is the principle. I dont believe anyone has the right to question my internal or anyones internal process. It would be like asking me to deny my experiences, my knowledge, my perceptions, my being because I might not come to the same conclusion as someone else.

That is the thought police to me. That is telling me I do not have a right to my opinion, in spite of what is being said to me, based on my own perceptions.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ok so explain this to me. If you meet a woman who says she is a lesbian but she is married to a male, living with him, and still sleeping with him, do you not have an internal process that says....ok you can call yourself whatever you want but I have some serious reservations about this and it doesnt say lesbian to me.

I am going to answer this even though you didn't ask *me*.

If I met a Lesbian who was married to a man, sleeping with him...I would totally take her at face value. Because to *me* who a person is sleeping with does not define who they are. I am married to a transguy and I am not straight, so I hope nobody tries to take away my Femme.

I don't think that there is such a thing as "thought police" either. That would require giving away ones power. Just because I see things differently than the next person doesn't mean that I am trying to make them carbon copy me.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I am going to answer this even though you didn't ask *me*.

If I met a Lesbian who was married to a man, sleeping with him...I would totally take her at face value. Because to *me* who a person is sleeping with does not define who they are. I am married to a transguy and I am not straight, so I hope nobody tries to take away my Femme.

I don't think that there is such a thing as "thought police" either. That would require giving away ones power. Just because I see things differently than the next person doesn't mean that I am trying to make them carbon copy me.

Super,

Thanks for your input.

Im still thinking if someone tells me an animal is a dog but it meows and purrs, I might be thinking that there dog sure seems like a cat to me.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Super,

Thanks for your input.

Im still thinking if someone tells me an animal is a dog but it meows and purrs, I might be thinking that there dog sure seems like a cat to me.

I have a dog named Kitty. If that helps?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I have a dog named Kitty. If that helps?

LOL.

Remind me to call YOU when my cat starts barking.

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Hey apretty,

I think I am hearing what you are saying. Theoretically, it is plausible that if one says they are thus and so, we should just take it as they know best....end of process.

I just dont think people, in reality work that way. We were given senses and intuition and gut feelings to help us navigate our way in life. It is a human thing to look at something, anything, and give it our own spin. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we dont. We might not verbalize the process but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

You say identity is not up for debate. [i don't understand the process of going from learning about someone's identity and then doing a little 'remodeling' of that (however internal the process), and ending up at some 'conclusion'].

Ok so explain this to me. If you meet a woman who says she is a lesbian but she is married to a male, living with him, and still sleeping with him, do you not have an internal process that says....ok you can call yourself whatever you want but I have some serious reservations about this and it doesnt say lesbian to me.

My point is the principle. I dont believe anyone has the right to question my internal or anyones internal process. It would be like asking me to deny my experiences, my knowledge, my perceptions, my being because I might not come to the same conclusion as someone else.

That is the thought police to me. That is telling me I do not have a right to my opinion, in spite of what is being said to me, based on my own perceptions.

So, then, if I say, "You're not really a butch, and I can clearly see that by the fact that you use blue font and you use female pronouns" that's ok with you?


Dylan

P.S. I've dated and slept with that lesbian you speak of...and her husband

[betenoire]

There's a world of difference between knowing the difference between a dog and a cat and having a secret grin and thinking "oh, I know otherwise" when someone tells you what their gender is.

[adorable]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Hey apretty,

I think I am hearing what you are saying. Theoretically, it is plausible that if one says they are thus and so, we should just take it as they know best....end of process.

I just dont think people, in reality work that way. We were given senses and intuition and gut feelings to help us navigate our way in life. It is a human thing to look at something, anything, and give it our own spin. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we dont. We might not verbalize the process but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

You say identity is not up for debate. [i don't understand the process of going from learning about someone's identity and then doing a little 'remodeling' of that (however internal the process), and ending up at some 'conclusion'].

Ok so explain this to me. If you meet a woman who says she is a lesbian but she is married to a male, living with him, and still sleeping with him, do you not have an internal process that says....ok you can call yourself whatever you want but I have some serious reservations about this and it doesnt say lesbian to me.

My point is the principle. I dont believe anyone has the right to question my internal or anyones internal process. It would be like asking me to deny my experiences, my knowledge, my perceptions, my being because I might not come to the same conclusion as someone else.

That is the thought police to me. That is telling me I do not have a right to my opinion, in spite of what is being said to me, based on my own perceptions.

What I think is "awww that sucks" because I know what it's like to live a lie.

[apretty]

this just keeps getting better. not really.

[Bit]

Originally Posted by apretty

this just keeps getting better. not really.

That is, I think, because it's completely derailed from Linus' original topic, which was about transmen and whether we ever stop calling them "trans" and just call them men.

Originally Posted by Dylan

Which is why I (personally) DO try to make an effort to distinguish btwn transgendered and transsexed (removing the sexual part all together, because most people tend to meld transsexual into sex and sexuality...which is archaic as far as I'm concerned)

Thank you for the new word! I'll do my best to use it from now on. You're right, having the word "sexual" in there draws attention in the wrong way--just as attention is drawn in the wrong way by the word "homosexual." We've probably all seen people get totally hung up on the "sexual" part of "homosexual" and try to reduce us all to nothing more than our sex partners. I guess it's probably the same kind of dynamic in both instances. Maybe that's one reason so many people think it's okay to demand info about a transexxed person's genitalia, because of the word "sexual" in "transsexual." *sheesh, sometimes it seems like the world is populated by three-year-olds when otherwise-adults get so obsessed with other people's body parts*

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ok I have no idea what you just said but it looks important. Can you elaborate?

Kobi, what I meant was, there's this word Transgendered that many people use an umbrella term for all those who don't fit the gender binary; when used in this way and applied to the word Butch, it means a Butch who might otherwise be described as third-gendered, other-gendered, gender-queer, male-identified, or any number of other ways. What these different descriptions all have in common is that they are about female-bodied Butches who do not legally transition because they are not men.

The confusion arises because the wider Transsexed community uses the word Transgendered as a synonym for Transexxed (Transsexual), makes no distinction between the two terms, and doesn't always recognize the usage of Transgendered to mean "transgressing gender binaries."

What's been happening because of that, is that people in our community now mean different things when they use the term transgendered--it just causes lots of confusion, especially when Transsexed men use the word transgendered about themselves. Everyone doesn't know what they mean, because of the other definition of transgendered that is about female-bodied Butches, yanno?

What causes MORE confusion is that so many of us abbreviate and just say "trans" instead of specifying one or the other, transgendered or transsexed. I'm guilty of that myself, although I am consistent and only say "trans" when I mean "transsexed."

Of course, when someone says "Transman" or "Transwoman" they are referring to transsexed individuals. I don't think there's any confusion about that use of "trans."

Does that help?

[SuperFemme]

and then there is heterosexual.

all i can think about are straight people doing the nasty.

[little man]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

and then there is heterosexual.

all i can think about are straight people doing the nasty.

i think about them dancing together in bars. it just doesn't look right.