Some labels do not include trans in the definition

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by apretty

and what if your 'vibes' are dead wrong--you choose someone else's GENDER based on some *feeling*?

what if i feel like you're a man--should i start he'ing you and 'go with it'?

do you see how this isn't at all your choice to make--how this is all contained within a person--no matter if you never came across someone and 'vibed' their gender/pronoun?

Having read and reread Sachita's post several times, it seems to me the totality of what was said is not being acknowledged. Rather a few concepts are being taken out of context.

I did not see her say anywhere that she would be disrespectful and deny someone else's identity. I saw her say she has an internal process....we all do....and maybe what she perceives in that process is not what is being stated by another.

We all get vibes about people. Sometimes we are correct, sometimes not. But to say one cannot have an internal process or a feeling about something is to deny their right to be human.

No one is "choosing" anothers gender or preferred pronoun. Sometimes you dont know and an automatic process is to use what you feel. Seems reasonable to me. Then the other person can state a preference in response. No harm, no foul.

Gawd, if I have to police everything that I think or feel or intuit cuz someone else takes issue with a tiny aspect of MY process, I'd be a freakin basketcase. We wont need to worry about the gender police but we'd have a real problem with the thought police.

[apretty]

hey Kobi--

i'm in no way wanting to control thoughts.

i do question the validity in *anyone* putting in their 2 cents on how another person identifies.

i don't think a 'vibe' or 'feeling' ought to be a factor in 'gender-ing' another person.

and as the 'vibe-theory' was presented, i find myself with a lot of questions (and yes, i did read Sachita's entire post).

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'.

identity is not usually up for debate, despite vibe or attraction--and forming a 'conclusion' on another's identity skates really close to a kind of thing that sometimes happens where a person wishes to redefine a person for their own comfort level.

(and Sachita as much says this, "if I'm wrong, someone disputes then I change the words but in my heart I never change. I see it how I feel it.")

the thing is, it doesn't matter to me if Sachita (or anyone else) keeps that kind of gender-ing an *internal* process--it's still creates the dynamic where a totally and completely other person 'reacts' to an identity as if it's optional and debatable, deniable. again, this is why i used the example of he-ing Sachita if i were to suddenly decide that she's 'a man'.

lastly, i didn't go inside of Sachita's head and steal her private thoughts--they're posted right here for all to read. and while i don't care for thought policing--i don't think that applies to a person publicly describing her process of "feeling" -gender, and utilizing that "feeling" as a barometer for which *she* determines another's gender.

[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.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Wait, so a person's gender and pronoun isn't so much about how THEY feel about their own gender and which pronoun they want used...but about how YOU feel about the gender/pronoun you would like to assign that person? And even if they correct you you will still think of them how you want to think of them but figure it's good enough that you try to use the pronoun they want?

Wow.

I can't change how I feel about something but I do respect someone's ID, for sure. It really isnt about gender for me as it is essence. It's probably complicated for me to fully describe. Let me think about the words more.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by apretty

and what if your 'vibes' are dead wrong--you choose someone else's GENDER based on some *feeling*?

what if i feel like you're a man--should i start he'ing you and 'go with it'?

do you see how this isn't at all your choice to make--how this is all contained within a person--no matter if you never came across someone and 'vibed' their gender/pronoun?

well first of all I never look at a person and just assume who they are. I'm likely to watch and study and yes my vibes have been wrong. I'm human.

[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.

[Bit]

Originally Posted by Linus

So a question to all: do you view those that were mis-assigned the wrong gender at birth as always trans something? if so, why? would you ever view them as wholly their gender (as they should be and not assigned)?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "as always trans something," Linus. Do you mean, do we always see a transsexed individual as transsexed even after they finish gender reassignment and are living wholly as themselves?

Or do you mean, do we always categorize people as transsexed if we find out their outsides don't match their insides?

I can answer your last question easily--yes, I view Transmen as men and Transwomen as women. It's especially easy for me to see the man in a Transman, even before transition, and there pretty much isn't anything that makes me change how I see him unless he tells me himself that he made a mistake and isn't a man after all. That's only happened once that I know of.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Bit

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "as always trans something," Linus. Do you mean, do we always see a transsexed individual as transsexed even after they finish gender reassignment and are living wholly as themselves?

Or do you mean, do we always categorize people as transsexed if we find out their outsides don't match their insides?

I can answer your last question easily--yes, I view Transmen as men and Transwomen as women. It's especially easy for me to see the man in a Transman, even before transition, and there pretty much isn't anything that makes me change how I see him unless he tells me himself that he made a mistake and isn't a man after all. That's only happened once that I know of.

It's the idea that we always categorize "transsexed" (I'm a little icky about this as it feels like we're transgressing on intersexed individuals -- ah, English. Such a fun language) individuals as always "trans" man or "trans" woman.

Some female bodied, male-identified do not identify with the "trans" idea, whether before, during or after medical treatment or even without. They see themselves as male only. No trans anything.

The thought that started this was whether the LGBTQ community assumes that someone like me has to be trans (I do identify as trans but I'm experience as an example rather than using someone else).

Does that clarify?

[little man]

Originally Posted by Linus

It's the idea that we always categorize "transsexed" (I'm a little icky about this as it feels like we're transgressing on intersexed individuals -- ah, English. Such a fun language) individuals as always "trans" man or "trans" woman.

Some female bodied, male-identified do not identify with the "trans" idea, whether before, during or after medical treatment or even without. They see themselves as male only. No trans anything.

The thought that started this was whether the LGBTQ community assumes that someone like me has to be trans (I do identify as trans but I'm experience as an example rather than using someone else).

Does that clarify?

could you elaborate on "someone like me"?

also, are you asking whether to be a part of the lgbtq community, one would have to identify as trans forever and a day, or would dropping the trans descriptor bar you from membership?

[Linus]

Originally Posted by little man

could you elaborate on "someone like me"?

Me, as someone who was assigned female at birth but is male.

also, are you asking whether to be a part of the lgbtq community, one would have to identify as trans forever and a day, or would dropping the trans descriptor bar you from membership?

No. I'm not thinking of forever. I'm thinking of starting from the beginning. Of never having trans as part of their identity.