Thursday, 12 January 2012 Ventura County Girl Scout calls for ban on Trans, fats. quote [ A reportedly 14-year-old Girl Scout has joined with parents and Scout alumni to call for a boycott of the widely popular Girl Scout cookies, claiming the organization is using cookie proceeds to push a radical homosexual agenda at the expense of the Scouts’ safety. ] Homophobic Girl Scout (really? Wasn't Girl Scouts founded on the principles of inclusiveness?) calls for boycott of Girl Scout Cookies because of transgendered boys being let in, prompting many to vow to buy MORE cookies this year. I'm proud of the post title on this one. [by assbastard@1:35amGMT] [+10 WTF]

KingPellinore said @ 1:53am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:4 Underrated] We've ordered 6 boxes.

LeavemeAlone said @ 2:52am GMT on 12th Jan You are supposed to order one at a time so that the Girl Scouts keep coming back.

Naruki said @ 2:55am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3 Insightful] Oh, they never leave...

KingPellinore said @ 3:09am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:-1 Overrated]

Urzazero said @ 1:54am GMT on 12th Jan It's a conspiracy to sell more cookies!

headlessfriar said @ 1:58am GMT on 12th Jan Yeah, but it might be working. This is especially nice to contrast with the historic homophobia in the boy scouts side of things.

feldenglas said @ 1:58am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] Fuck you, kid.

swiggy said @ 1:59am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] I've always been puzzled over the motivations of people that are THAT obsessed with what others do with their genitals.

kitten said @ 2:25am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] I completely agree. If you care that much about things that do not affect you, or that you think these things affect you somehow, you need to get your head checked.

Chop-Logik said @ 3:02am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Informative] At night their dreams are filled with claustrophobic waves of wiggling penises that intrude upon their sensibilities and they wake up in a cold sweat gripped with a terrible urge to tidy the entire house

spite48 said @ 3:39am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2] *fapfapfap*

foobar said @ 3:31am GMT on 12th Jan Probably you just need to get some head.

kitten said @ 3:45am GMT on 12th Jan Me?

oddzer said @ 3:54am GMT on 12th Jan the hypothetical you.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:32am GMT on 12th Jan Technically, everyone needs head. Some more than others.

foobar said @ 8:26am GMT on 12th Jan Yes please.

tickaz said @ 4:38am GMT on 12th Jan I dunno, us SE'ers seemed to be pretty darn interested in videos and pictures of other people doing things with their genitals.

pleaides said @ 8:50am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] Yeah but we tend to celebrate it rather than get upset about the way god might feel about it.

God said @ 12:17am GMT on 13th Jan lol your doin it wrong

graham said @ 2:11am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Underrated] That thumb really backs up her "I'm a cunt" agenda.

b said @ 3:55am GMT on 12th Jan I never met a cunt I didn't like.

clumsy_juggler said @ 2:17am GMT on 12th Jan The interesting thing is that Scouts have been admitting females for a few years now.

Mr. Langosta said @ 2:40am GMT on 12th Jan I've had just about enough of your Troop 47 bashing!

blackpsypher said @ 2:32am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] damn it; remember the good old days when the girl scouts would come around selling their cookies and when you invited them inside for lemonade and maybe an inappropriate massage by the pool you knew exactly what you were getting. leave it to the damn liberals to screw up anything good in the world.

sanepride said @ 2:53am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] Sure it's easy to ridicule this young crusader but this is where we're heading people:

KingPellinore said @ 3:07am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3] "Eh, nobody's perfect."

sacrelicious said @ 3:30am GMT on 12th Jan the fifties were just one long homosexual orgy.

sanepride said @ 5:42am GMT on 12th Jan ...and yet the baby boom continued unabated.

Kat said @ 12:55am GMT on 15th Jan

Supreme_Coconut said @ 3:03am GMT on 12th Jan I know this will stir the pot (read: I'll be downmodded) but I don't agree with letting transgendered kids in to the Girl Scouts. It's a little boy. He may not recognize himself as such but if you pull their pants down, that doesn't belong in The Girl Scouts. Maybe in A Girl Scout, but I digress. I'm not a fan of transgendered people. I know, I know, I'll be called a hatemonger but I don't hate them. I just find it really really weird. I'm fine with guys liking guys or women liking women so long as they can be recognized as such. A guy dressing like a woman and trying to get with dudes just weirds me the fuck out. They weren't born the opposite sex.

skainsmate said @ 3:06am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Funny] I know this won't help, but fuck you.

skainsmate said @ 3:20am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Insightful] You should thank your lucky stars that you are blessed with the ability to not understand that biological sex and psychological gender are not one and the same. It is a gift that has been given to you by a lifetime free of such torment.

theolypse said @ 4:14am GMT on 12th Jan I keep thinking that "privilege" is too soft a word, some times. We need something with vitriol.

GordonGuano said @ 4:52am GMT on 12th Jan So...would you rather live with a vague sense that your perfectly healthy body is somehow made wrong in some way you don't and will never understand, or would you rather look like Juliana Wetmore? Maybe when placebo is offered in prescription strength the trans community will disappear.

skainsmate said @ 5:13am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3 Insightful] I don't believe my body was "made wrong." That's superstitious nonsense. We're all just a collection of subatomic particles arranged in a fashion that gives the illusion of sovereignty.

GordonGuano said @ 5:47am GMT on 12th Jan Some would call utilitarianism superstition, I suppose. Striving for the most good through the least harm won't lead you wrong often, though.

snowfox said @ 12:24am GMT on 13th Jan Utility is the most benefit for the most people. As long as lots of people benefit, utility dictates that it is ok to fuck over the minority.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:16am GMT on 13th Jan Then let's reinstate slavery.

snowfox said @ 3:37am GMT on 13th Jan Precisely. This is why I dislike anyone making an argument from traditional utility. I prefer the inverted form: least harm to the fewest.

oddzer said @ 12:23pm GMT on 12th Jan Maybe when gender essentialism falls by the wayside, THEN the trans community will disappear.

pleaides said @ 8:53am GMT on 12th Jan I really admire your honesty and courage. I was gonna say 'you've got balls' but I thought that might not send the right message :/

skainsmate said @ 6:44pm GMT on 12th Jan Thank you.

pleaides said @ 5:31am GMT on 13th Jan :) A pleasure. Best wishes to you.

KingPellinore said @ 3:13am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] C'mon, guy. I don't like the idea of men having sex because that isn't what turns me on, but I don't care if they do because it doesn't, you know, affect me any more than a boy who identifies as a girl joining the girl scouts affects you.

arrowhen said @ 5:57am GMT on 12th Jan I like the idea of men having sex even though that isn't what turns me on. Kind of like I like the idea of model railroad enthusiasts geeking out over their model railroads, even though that's not my idea of a fun hobby.

KingPellinore said @ 1:16pm GMT on 12th Jan That's pretty much in line with what I'm trying to say, that I don't hold my own preferences up as the gold standard of acceptable behavior.

bruceski said @ 8:54am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] What's the old line? "They can do whatever they want to each other as long as they don't do it in the street and startle the horses?"

Joe_Luma said @ 3:23am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] You're wierded out by something = You haven't spent enough time in the situation for it to become normal. Make some transgendered friends.

theolypse said @ 4:14am GMT on 12th Jan Works for new foods, too, which are about as disturbing as ladyboys need to be.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:33am GMT on 12th Jan What's more disturbing, ladyboys or hoof soup?

theolypse said @ 4:39am GMT on 12th Jan I've seen hooves. *shudder*

Chop-Logik said @ 4:47am GMT on 12th Jan *whinnys*

Aidentas said @ 8:32pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] I miss Kate.

sacrelicious said @ 3:31am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:4 Underrated] anyone who would go around pulling girl scout's pants down should be in jail.

foobar said @ 3:35am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Underrated] Think of it this way: they're setting themselves up to deal with a lot of bullshit. It quite obviously matters a great deal more to them than it does to you, so maybe you should just let them be?

oddzer said @ 3:44am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] I hope that after this you examine where your disagreement comes from. It seems like it's sort of rooted in squick, feeling like there's something viscerally wrong with trans people. While you have every right to avoid taking trans partners of your own due to squick, saying what other people are and are not allowed to do is not really okay. Do you have a better reason for feeling like trans girls shouldn't be in the Girl Scouts?

rndmnmbr said @ 4:34am GMT on 12th Jan "Squick" is an entire class of thing that should just go away. People need to stop being freaked out by irrelevant shit.

theolypse said @ 4:40am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Good] But they won't. So if we can persuade people to not make their personal freakouts a matter of public fucking policy, we're making progress.

spite48 said @ 3:44am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] I find it really weird that bigots are allowed to do all kinds of things, but fortunately for society at large, neither your views nor mine are determinative of the rights of others.

mechanical contrivance said @ 3:51am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] You're ok with gay people because their existence doesn't affect you. The existence of transgendered people doesn't affect you either, so why are you not ok with that? Your reasoning is inconsistent.

sacrelicious said @ 4:04am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] also, why is affecting him the line? "yeah, I'm okay with them queers just as long as they don't affect me. but if just one of them starts a chain of causality that results in so much as doormat being askew, I swear to god I'll raise hell!"

snowfox said @ 12:31am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] You're all missing the obvious fear people have of the trans-gendered... What if the person I am attracted to turns out to be trans? I have no problem with this possibility, but for many people, the chance that it could happen is enough for them to be repelled. Not saying it's ok, but I think that's what is going on here.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:17am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] For some, that's a jackpot.

bruceski said @ 3:00am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Informative] been there, done that, got over it..

arrowhen said @ 3:54am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] He may not recognize himself as such but if you pull their pants down, that doesn't belong in The Girl Scouts. You're right. They shouldn't be pulling their pants down in the Girl Scouts.

sacrelicious said @ 3:58am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] the lesson here: allowing transgendered children into the Girl Scouts is inviting rapists. allowing strangers to pull children's pants down is just due diligence!

b said @ 4:01am GMT on 12th Jan While I accept your position, I also submit that Girl Scouts is just a name and shouldn't be used to define people. If an 8 or 10 or 12 year old boy wants to identify more with what the girls his age are doing, I personally don't see a problem. To conflate that with genitalia is at worst disingenuous at worst and simply uninformed at best. While I completely get the stance, I also have osmotically absorbed a ton of reading on gender, sexuality, feminism and related humanities. Shit, I think I'm one of those people.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:38am GMT on 12th Jan One of those people that can absorb knowledge through their skin? How many people are there that can do that? I've never heard of that.

devilsad said @ 9:04pm GMT on 12th Jan I once fell asleep on an open copy of the Kama Sutra, and when I woke up I was fucking Indian. It can happen to anyone.

Dioxin said @ 4:20am GMT on 12th Jan I'm totally weirded out by dicks. Your very existence upsets me.

sacrelicious said @ 4:27am GMT on 12th Jan personally, I don't think dicks should be allowed to marry.

	ENZ said @ 4:29am GMT on 12th Jan Just a little thought experiment to all who have an issue with this fellow's opinion. How accepting are we supposed to be towards people's self-image? Are we to accept
	oddzer said @ 4:44am GMT on 12th Jan Mastercard? Are we to accept Discover? Soon we'll all be accepting Diner's Club and THEN where will we be?

sacrelicious said @ 4:51am GMT on 12th Jan everywhere we want to be!

theolypse said @ 4:46am GMT on 12th Jan Is that dude calling himself a cat hurting anyone? Would letting him act like a cat hurt anyone? What impact does his self-image have on anyone else's rights? Those are the essential questions. If he is harming none, then he should be free to do as he likes. If he is harming some directly, he should be prevented. If he is causing indirect or counterweighted harm, you get into comparisons of degree.

GordonGuano said @ 4:41am GMT on 12th Jan I can kind of see where you're coming from, I think, though I personally stop short of "weirds me out". I don't have a problem with a person with a penis identifying as female, or dressing as such, or following what are considered to be "feminine" pursuits. I do think a person who wants to turn healthy functioning tissue into non-functioning tissue or dress as a parody of what they think the opposite sex looks like 24/7 is mentally ill at worst or an attention whore who should not be encouraged at best. And until women can stand up and piss into a urinal with the same degree of accuracy as men (as someone whose work once involved upkeep of a public restroom, you can trust my estimate of around 33% of the average pee volume making it in), I don't have an issue with separating restrooms by gender. I'd like to think this is a teachable moment for scouting; I fear religious fundamentalists and the trans community would both deny they had anything to learn. Full disclosure: I would bang the shit out of Kimber James.

theolypse said @ 4:50am GMT on 12th Jan Your understanding of GRS is, at the most charitable, years out of date. Vaginoplasty works pretty damned well, and you end up with healthy, functioning tissue in a brand new shape, which is largely true of any common cosmetic surgery. Plus, for parody, you'll be wanting drag queens.

GordonGuano said @ 5:00am GMT on 12th Jan Sure, you can take a coin toss on ever having an orgasm again, but I was referring to menstruation and childbirth. Let's not forget that part of being a woman means cramps and feeling unclean every so often. And until that can happen (or Buck Angel can get kicked in the nuts), sex change operations are nothing but a novelty for porn.

theolypse said @ 5:06am GMT on 12th Jan Huh. Well, you're wrong. But you're also a troll, so I'm not going to take you seriously enough to pull out specifics.

GordonGuano said @ 5:20am GMT on 12th Jan What am I wrong about? Are you seriously saying inverting your wedding tackle is a cure for being fucked in the head? Not trolling here, legitimately confused.

papango said @ 5:28am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Underrated] You're wrong about trans-people being 'fucked in the head'. And then because of that, you're pretty much wrong about everything else (hell, there's eve a device that lets women pee standing up). That you think it's 'vague sense that your perfectly healthy body is somehow made wrong in some way you don't and will never understand' and can be cured by placebo is also spectacular in it's wrongness. And you're understanding of what it means to be a women 'cramps and feeling unclean every so often' suggests that at best, women might be something you've seen at a distance.

tickaz said @ 6:04am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] ...through binoculars.

papango said @ 5:31am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] And I forgot to mention, if you were genuinely curious, you could have just asked skainsmate about her experiences, rather than jumping to 'placebos will make you people disappear'.

skainsmate said @ 6:00am GMT on 12th Jan Why would he consider the input of someone fucked in the head? Especially when he seems so very well-adjusted.

GordonGuano said @ 6:22am GMT on 12th Jan I thought it was a given that everyone is fucked in the head.

theolypse said @ 5:58am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2] I'm seriously saying you should ask someone who has transitioned what the reasons for, effects of, and reasoning behind that transition were. You should not continue to attempt to dictate the Proper Handling of a life you will never live from outside it. You should not continue to marginalize people who are daily made invisible. You shouldn't be asking a cissexual man what it means to be a transsexual woman. And I am seriously saying, as papango has already done, that your automatic treatment of people who are a part of your fucking community as though they are an eternal outside quantity to be studied and muttered over by Real People is offensive, even if it had led you to less trollworthy conclusions.

GordonGuano said @ 6:20am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] Thanks for the eloquent and thoughtful response. My Aunt Paula (born Paul) and the three other (that I know of) trans people I know have pretty much set my opinion, though I understand it's by no means a representative sample. I shall try not to dictate a Proper Life in future and merely offer pointed suggestions. Given that I pretty much look in on society like a hobo through a restaurant window, I'm not sure that I can marginalize anyone, but I am trying to be less of an asshole this year. People are pretty much going to have to remain an outside quantity, though, as I'm not sure that I qualify. Now get off your fucking high horse and post some tranny pr0n.

sacrelicious said @ 7:16am GMT on 12th Jan I suspect you may be lying about your aunt. statistically it's very uncommon for trans-people to take the feminized/masculinized version of their given name. that's generally more of a television and movie cliche. usually they pick a new name altogether. that's not to say it never happens (Chaz Bono springs to mind), but it's uncommon. in any event, you seem to have a great deal of contempt for your aunt, and those three other people (that you know of), as you do not speak of them as people, but rather things. as for your assertion that one cannot marginalize others if they themselves feel marginalized: I recall years ago there was a guy that felt really marginalized. he wrote a book about how marginalized he felt. it got very popular, and he rode the success of that book to political fortune. he then used that power to further marginalize several historically marginalized groups. that man's name? George Wilcox. but I'm sure he's not the only one...

GordonGuano said @ 7:48am GMT on 12th Jan So you're saying everyone doesn't feel like a minority of one being pursued by the hounds of hell? Interesting.

bruceski said @ 9:06am GMT on 12th Jan I think renaming depends on the person. I'll leave names out of it for privacy reasons but one of the people I know who switched picked a name starting with the same letter and a similar cadence, though he just recently changed his name again for reasons I dunno. The other one I know looked through his family history to take an ancestor's name, one his parents were considering had he been born a boy. Another factor is how much a person wants to shift. If they're trying to start a new life (perhaps having been repressed and going through the issues that causes) picking a different name would be a psychological factor, while if they see it as a minor detail a similar name would help communicate to family and friends that they're the same person.

papango said @ 5:19am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] Is it your argument that I stopped being a woman last year after my uterus was removed due to growths? I don't menstruate, and I won't be having children. Will my new dick come in the mail, or should I go talk to someone downtown about it?

GordonGuano said @ 5:36am GMT on 12th Jan No, not at all. But would you consider someone a woman who had never had a period? Didn't even have ovaries? I mean, you'll never know how much it sucks to get kicked in the nuts (or how awesome it feels to scratch them) or have to walk to the chalkboard when you have a boner, so I would say there are aspects of being male you'd never be able to get. None of this makes us greater or lesser, it's just nasty inconvenient biology. My argument is that it's best not messed with any more than necessary. I would also say that gender is mostly a cultural/social construct, and trans folk need therapy, maybe meds, and an environment of support and understanding. Not getting it today just makes the problem worse. With the Cheyenne, if a dude wanted to sew instead of hunt, they let him sew. And nobody had to mutilate their genitals! I don't know about getting dicks in the mail, but I've been thinking of ordering a fleshlight.

papango said @ 5:46am GMT on 12th Jan Yes. I would consider a woman who never had a period to be a woman. Even if she didn't have ovaries. Why wouldn't I? It's hardly a defining feature of female-ness. Most women do, but some don't. Are you seriously postulating that a girl who doesn't menstruate isn't female? Really? I guess yes since you think that scratching your nuts and having an unwanted erection are the defining characteristics of your maleness. And that's a pretty shallow understanding of gender. It's my understanding that gender is biological, but that it is based in the brain. And if a person wants to change their body, it's their business. Being trans doesn't look to me like the sort of thing a person would put themselves through if it wasn't something that didn't go to the core of their identity. I don't think you can wave it away because it's not something you understand.

GordonGuano said @ 6:01am GMT on 12th Jan So I think you're agreeing with me at the next logical step, then. If not having the accepted equipment is no barrier to belonging, does it not stand to reason that having it doesn't necessarily qualify a person? (EX: I have biggera tits than Kate Hudson). Where we part ways, I think, is my stance that GRS is unnecessary and counterproductive. It isn't me not understanding that's the issue, though. It's somebody else with the same shallow understanding of gender doing harm to themselves that worries me.

papango said @ 6:05am GMT on 12th Jan You really think someone with the total ignorance you have on display here is going to be a candidate for GRS. And you're worried about the poor dears. theolypse was right. You are a troll, and you can fuck off back under your bridge.

papango said @ 6:29am GMT on 12th Jan That was pretty uncalled for, actually, now that I've read it again. I should probably be downmodded for that.

GordonGuano said @ 6:43am GMT on 12th Jan Don't apologize for caring about something, I don't even when I'm wrong ;-)

papango said @ 6:47am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:4] Oh, I'm not sorry. It was just uncalled for.

GordonGuano said @ 6:41am GMT on 12th Jan Given the divorce rate, I find it hard to believe that people know what they really want for themselves. We lie to ourselves better than anybody. A lot of that is Kurt Vonnegut's foma principle, but some of it is setting ourselves up to fail as well. Most people only live in one layer of self-awareness, so they can't be expected to know themselves. No trolling.

papango said @ 6:52am GMT on 12th Jan Possibly that's true for a lot of people. I certainly don't give much thought to my femaleness, it just is what I am. But I think people who have struggled with gender identity might be in the small group who have given it a lot of thought and do know themselves.

tickaz said @ 11:47am GMT on 12th Jan Gordon: I think what papango is trying to say is that unless you have experienced being transgendered yourself, you have no idea of the emotional turmoil involved and therefore don't know what the fuck you are talking about have an uninformed opinion.

Dioxin said @ 10:52am GMT on 12th Jan Relationships are unnecessary and counterproductive.

theolypse said @ 6:06am GMT on 12th Jan That can happen. Yes. That can absolutely happen. Somehow, despite the time and cost and mandatory counseling, and innate aversion to this sort of thing that most people who don't need it have, that can theoretically happen. On the other hand, transgendered folks of all stripes being subjected to a host of horrors, of which their gender presentation and their understanding of it receiving massively enhanced scrutiny from those it does not concern being only the very least of a long list, does happen every day. The odds are overwhelmingly against it being a flippant choice.

azazel said @ 7:24am GMT on 12th Jan This is some 4chan-level thinking, right there.

GordonGuano said @ 8:19am GMT on 12th Jan Nigga, please. I'm using the simplest terms for the sake of argument. Go read A Game of You again; Neil Gaiman has my back here.

willrogers said @ 9:40am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] It's your ideas that are repugnant and obtuse, not the way you expressed them.

Fwee said @ 7:52am GMT on 12th Jan So, if I understand you correctly, you think society should evolve to a point where people shouldn't physically alter their bodies in order to identify with a gender or a particular persona? If that's the case, that's an opinion that I would agree with provided that a) You don't think trans people necessitate therapy, because if that's what they want to identify with (and don't feel forced to identify with) as I personally think that isn't an issue. b) And that people can do whatever the fuck they like with their bodies provided they don't feel forced to do it in order to fit in some sort of social construct. That probably would qualify as a completely different opinion actually...

Fwee said @ 8:00am GMT on 12th Jan *because if that's what they want to identify with (and don't feel forced forced to indentify with), I personally think that isn't an issue.

GordonGuano said @ 8:23am GMT on 12th Jan That's pretty much what I'm getting at, though in much more of an asshole-ish manner. And apparently suggesting that some people have issues that qualify as mental illness in an asshole-ish manner doesn't help your case much.

willrogers said @ 9:44am GMT on 12th Jan You're just using clinical psychology/psychiatry as your rationale for pathologizing and "otherizing" things and people you dislike and misunderstand. It's no different from homophobes claiming that homosexuals are mentally ill and/or that all gay people were molested as children. You talk about gender being a social construct in another comment, but did you ever think your opinions on transgendered people comes from your own socialization in a transphobic culture?

GordonGuano said @ 10:47am GMT on 12th Jan Hang on a sec, I don't recall ever saying all trans people are mentally ill. If I did, I was drunk or being more of an asshole than usual. I do think that it can be a pathology if taken to extremes, and I honestly don't see why that's so controversial. If anything, my reaction to our trans (and gay, and black, and literacy)-phobic culture is to go the other way and become more accepting. I don't think there should be any sacred cows in a culture, though, so everyone is fair game for mockery. And there will never be a marginalized group I am 1/10 as hard on as myself.

willrogers said @ 11:11am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] 1. Do you not read your own comments before and/or after posting them? In the comment I was responding to, you literally wrote: That's pretty much what I'm getting at, though in much more of an asshole-ish manner. And apparently suggesting that some people have issues that qualify as mental illness in an asshole-ish manner doesn't help your case much. That is you saying that transgenderism is a mental illness and in your other comment, you deemed it as "at worst mental illness" and "attention whoring." 2. If your comments to this SE entry are any indicator, your claim about being "more accepting" is total horseshit. Pathologizing a group you personally find confusing, distasteful, weird, etc. as mentally ill is pretty much the exact opposite of acceptance. Your categorization of female/woman as basically "menstruated at least once in life" is at best dismissive of transgenderism and can in no way be construed as "acceptance." It's extremely telling how unaccepting you are that you have to go through all these verbal and mental gymnastics to come up with a definition of "female/woman" that excludes transgender women, but includes other women who don't have menstrual cycles, can't bear children, and are otherwise qualitatively just like postoperative transgender women. 3. As I've written in other responses to your comments, your ideas of "pathology" and "mental illness" have zero connection to science, medicine, and reality, but rather are just your way of rationalizing your bigotry while refusing to take responsibility for it. It's absolutely no different from homophobes who classify homosexuality as a mental illness.

GordonGuano said @ 7:36pm GMT on 12th Jan 1.See, the qualifier of "some" is the part you are deliberately ignoring, to my increasing frustration. My definition of where transgenderism becomes a pathology is probably more stringent than the DSM-IV, but it feels like you're trying to lump me in with Fred Phelps. I'm not using a particularly broad brush, but apparently the idea that gender identity disorder even could possibly be mental illness is beyond the pale. I mean, if it's identified as a disorder, there is something wrong, yes? 2. I'm in pretty much the same boat as everyone else here that mental and biological distinctions are pretty much irrelevant. I'm just going one step farther and actually treating them as irrelevant. I'll use pronouns based on the shape of a person's genitalia for the sake of convenience and that's the end of my emotional involvement. If somebody identifies themselves as female but I don't, it makes no difference. I don't expect anyone to feel obligedto give a shit about what I say and I extend the same courtesy. 3. Anything can be a mental illness if taken to extremes, even drinking water. I don't see how that's bigoted or even controversial. I'd like to think that if John Wayne Gacy had lived in a world where coming out was no big deal, his crawlspace wouldn't have been full of corpses. Maybe I'm a hatemonger for marginalizing serial killers, maybe he was just a sadistic, evil fuck.

azazel said @ 7:57pm GMT on 12th Jan And you call black people 'niggers' too, or what? Because that's the level of insensitivity you're displaying here. I'm not going to talk about your other points -- because I'm not smart enough for that, and I'm not really involved in the discussion anyway -- but calling someone who identifies as a girl "boy" because she happened to get born with the wrong genitalia is fucking inconsiderate. Why not use pronouns based on what the person wants instead?

willrogers said @ 9:39am GMT on 12th Jan You are conflating two different ideas. Gender and sex are completely different constructs and a transwoman doesn't necessarily ascribe to her society's expected gender norms for women, but she might. It really depends on the individual person, but what's important for them is not that they act a certain way, but that their physical bodies match the way they feel inside. There was a great documentary on HBO sports last year about three transwomen who are all sports writers or otherwise very prominent in the sports journalism community. Being so involved and interested in sports didn't make them any less women, nor did transitioning lessen their interests in sports or any other aspect of their personality before they began their transitions. Even if our society was nearly androgynous with no prominent gender differences, these people would still want to transition because the bodies they were born with feel alien and uncomfortable. It's not some kind of mental illness or "problem" that needs to be treated so that they don't feel like the opposite sex, it's just a temporary issue that generally gets solved once they've transitioned.

GordonGuano said @ 10:52am GMT on 12th Jan Whose body doesn't feel alien and uncomfortable? I know I blow my nose 3-4 times a day, but my sinuses won't take the hint and keep making snot. What gives?

willrogers said @ 10:57am GMT on 12th Jan Wow, way to equate gender identity with the quirks of your sinus passages. What's next, comparing rape to your income taxes?

KingPellinore said @ 1:25pm GMT on 12th Jan Why not? Libertarians have been comparing income taxes to slavery for years.

willrogers said @ 12:19am GMT on 13th Jan And libertarians are just as foolish, myopic, and biased as GordonGuano.

willrogers said @ 9:28am GMT on 12th Jan So, what about women that have hysterectomies? Are they not women because they no longer menstruate and can't have children?

buzhidao said @ 11:12am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Underrated] i dont ever 'feel unclean' because of my period, and in the context of this whole thread i find your use of the term a bit telling. telling of what, i dont know, cause i havent had enough coffee.

arrowhen said @ 5:27pm GMT on 12th Jan ...but I was referring to menstruation and childbirth. Medical science has solved those design flaws.

thikarai said @ 3:34am GMT on 13th Jan http://gizmodo.com/5574556/finally-a-menstruation-machine-that-allows-men-to-experience-the-monthly-cycle

foobar said @ 5:11am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Insightful] Not always. (Which is largely true of any common cosmetic surgery.) But if it's not your fucking tissue, why do you care? Yes, I did post this comment just so I could use the term "fucking tissue."

tickaz said @ 6:02am GMT on 12th Jan +1 fucking tissue, awesome triple entendre there.

bruceski said @ 8:52am GMT on 12th Jan I'm not sure if I just wound up in the right circle of friends in college or if they're more common than people realize, but two guys I know used to be girls, including one I was in an awkward "are we dating and if not do we want to" thing with before he figured out what was going on. That must've been an even more uncomfortable time for him than it was for me. There's a third woman I know who I'm kinda wondering about but a good way to ask has never come up and if she is she's not as open about it as the other two. It took a bit to get my head around it when I first found out, but it's pretty straightforward: if someone says they're a dude they're a dude, and if they say they're a chick they're a chick. What's in the pants only matters if you wanna bone them.

pleaides said @ 9:02am GMT on 12th Jan I completely disagree with you, but you're being honest about what you're thinking and you haven't been downmodded. Instead you've sparked off a very interesting discussion that I've enjoyed reading. SE, right there.

willrogers said @ 9:24am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] So, your argument is that you don't like transgendered people because they're icky? Honestly, how is your argument any different from any homophobe's who hates gays because they think gay sex and relationships are gross? Also, you really don't seem to understand that sex is more than simple reproductive anatomy. There's also neurochemistry, brain anatomy, and psychology at work which are just as, if not more, important than what's between your legs.

azazel said @ 5:59pm GMT on 12th Jan I modded you up, but make no mistake: I didn't mod you up because I agree with you or think you're making any decent points. I only modded you up because I don't think you're a troll, and that you're expressing your own opinion. That said, you're pretty damn stupid bigoted.

thikarai said @ 2:55am GMT on 13th Jan Okay, not trying to troll, really, but I want to understand your stance here. As far as I can understand, you're okay with guys liking guys. But are you okay with effeminate acting guys liking manly guys? If they wear culturally designated gendered clothing (so say, the difference between a schoolgirl kilt and a scottish manly kilt, which are effectively the same thing, with the exception that scottsmen always go commando), that slight difference will give you distress? How about a person born as a male, identifies, acts and dresses as a female, but only like girls? Would that be okay?

Supreme_Coconut said @ 7:19am GMT on 14th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] Effeminate guys and manly guys isn't that much of a stretch for many homosexual relationships so I don't see that as a problem. I'm not even opposed to drag queens performing at shows (I've attended such events) or maybe dressing up for Halloween (I've done it twice). I've read through a lot of these responses and can admit that it's not right of me to think the way I do. Just like it isn't right for me to get a little on edge when I see a Muslim with a full beard and black turban. I shouldn't feel that way but I do and it mostly comes from last of experience. It "weirds me out" that people identify as the opposite sex all the time but maybe it's because I've never met one and talked with them. I've seen a few since I moved to Chicago but I'm not the kind of person to just walk up to one and say "Hey, why do you walk around like that all the time?" Wouldn't that be weird? "Hi, I admitted to some people online that I didn't really understand transgendered people and they said I should talk to one. Got a couple minutes to talk so I can broaden my horizons?" At the end of the day, I can admit that I shouldn't feel that way towards the transgendered and if the opportunity comes up to better understand one, I will endeavor to do so.

theolypse said @ 8:32am GMT on 14th Jan Those are probably not Muslims, but Sikhs.

bruceski said @ 9:08am GMT on 14th Jan I think that's understandable. I kinda fell into a circle of queer folk (in every sense of the word) and at the time there was one person I felt awkward around because I knew they were trans but had no clue anything else about them. After college when one of my closer aquaintances came out I was able to take a moment to think about what I thought about it, coming to the conclusion that unless they stated otherwise they were the same person I knew with a different pronoun. Of course, my best female friend was really into Rocky Horror and dragged me along as "I'm a small woman walking along dark streets in a sequined corset and skirt" accompaniment, so I'd had plenty of time to come to terms with the idea of things outside my sheltered, fairly uniform pre-college life.

psychotim said @ 3:03am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] Her diction alone makes me want to strangle her.

tickaz said @ 5:45am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Funny] Her dick-shun also makes me want to strangle her.

Anti-fuites said @ 3:10am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2]

skainsmate said @ 3:11am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:5 Informative] A couple of issues I have with your commentary, assbastard. I know you meant no offense, but I need to address them. First of all, she's not being homophobic. She's being transphobic. Despite the fact that the trans community joined up with the gay rights movement for increased political clout, gender identity is completely separate from sexual preference. Secondly, transgendered boys are not being let into the Girl Scouts. Do not adopt this little hater's mislabeling. Transgendered girls are being accepted into the Girl Scouts.

theolypse said @ 4:09am GMT on 12th Jan https://www.facebook.com/lvoswink/posts/206128032813156

theolypse said @ 4:10am GMT on 12th Jan By way of explanation, Lauren's arguments really ought to be read widely.

tickaz said @ 4:32am GMT on 12th Jan From my understanding, the big difference between transgendered people and homo or bi sexual people is the trans people seem to identify as the other gender from early childhood but have the wrong body parts for it. I'm no doctor, but this sounds so me like some kind of medical disorder where the brain is sending mixed messages, even before birth (ie making a penis instead of a clitoris). Sexual preference, however, is not determined at birth.

theolypse said @ 4:38am GMT on 12th Jan Yes. That is the big difference. It's the same as the big difference between transgendered people and cisgendered straight people. The homosexuality thing, as you eloquently pointed out by not even tangentially referencing, is unrelated.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:40am GMT on 12th Jan When is sexual preference determined?

theolypse said @ 4:40am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Funny] In retrospective, often.

Cackzilla said @ 4:41am GMT on 12th Jan You can prove that sexual preference is not determined at birth? Last time I checked the most recent study actually indicated that homosexuality IS determined at birth. That was a few years ago though so I'm sure there's been another study to contradict that one, and another one after that to contradict that one. I suggest just going to a gay bar, sitting down with some of the people there are talking to them about how and/or when they realized they were gay. See what kind of responses you get.

dreamingzephyr said @ 4:46am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] I kissed a girl in the first grade. Of course, I made out with a guy in the second grade. Maybe sluttiness is determined at birth.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:54am GMT on 12th Jan That's nothing. I touched a vagina the day I was born.

tickaz said @ 5:40am GMT on 12th Jan AND IT WAS THE LAST TIME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

tickaz said @ 5:42am GMT on 12th Jan Jokes aside, are you in fact claiming to be an organic contrivance, or were you somehow both mechanically AND organically contrived?

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:20pm GMT on 12th Jan I might be a cyborg.

Joe_Luma said @ 10:32am GMT on 14th Jan Based on your name and organic conception, it is clear that your mother used artificial insemination.

skainsmate said @ 4:43am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3] Wouldn't the bigger difference be that being trans- or cisgendered has to do with who you identify as, and being homo- or bi- or heterosexual has to do with who you want to bang?

oddzer said @ 4:49am GMT on 12th Jan YES

tickaz said @ 5:36am GMT on 12th Jan Isn't that just a summation of what I just said? I went on the say however that trans people are born that way, homo or bi people, not so much.

tickaz said @ 5:37am GMT on 12th Jan Sorry I didn't mean to come across as being confrontational, a simple "I agree" would have sufficed.

skainsmate said @ 3:12pm GMT on 12th Jan It's not what you expressed. You comment is focused more on the timing of things.

skainsmate said @ 3:15pm GMT on 12th Jan You did mention the dysmorphia, but no clear "big difference" was ever directly drawn. "The big difference is that one of them is this thing determined at this time. More sentences about that one thing. Still more about that one thing. The other thing, however, is not determined at this time."

tickaz said @ 10:39pm GMT on 14th Jan Yeah, sorry that I was an asshole. You're right, of course.

chold_numa said @ 10:45am GMT on 12th Jan Sexual preference, however, is not determined at birth. Given no strong evidence one way or another, I'd hardly be making a blanket statement like that. Like pretty much everything else, there's probably a broad spectrum and we all fall on it somewhere, with outliers at either end. Regardless of whether it is true or not, and given that it doesn't affect your life one way or another, perhaps it's best to let other people do what's most comfortable for them?

keela said @ 11:25pm GMT on 16th Jan erm, sexual preference IS determined before birth. gay people are born that way. and as to trans people - are you suggesting that, with some medication, it could be 'fixed'? because again, that's not so, and it's not a 'medical disorder'. it's simply a difference, which can be dealt with if other people aren't arseholes about it. and it's certainly about far more than which genitals one feels one should have - it's about how one identifies at the root of one's being.

assbastard said @ 1:06pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3 Good] I apologize and if I were able to edit the post I would, but the magical statute of limitations has passed while I was sleeping. I don't remember writing the commentary, mostly because I was DEAD tired, but rest assured that if I had been in my right mind, and not been tired out of my right mind, I'd have caught the errors. Thanks for clearing it up, because what you've said needed to be said. Cheers!

crom said @ 6:20pm GMT on 12th Jan I hope this doesn't come off as ignorant and hateful (I am ignorant but not hateful), but I've never understood this particular bit of labeling. I always assumed that being a boy or girl was an issue of sex, not gender, determined by internal or external organs or genetics, depending on your preference. If we're going to divorce gender from sex and say that you get to pick which one you're going to be, then doesn't that make gender a sort of ridiculous concept? It makes sense to divide your society into social roles according to actual biological differences, but once technology has shifted the goalposts so that the biological differences are secondary to the social roles, isn't it just antiquated nonsense to maintain the social roles at all?

skainsmate said @ 6:40pm GMT on 12th Jan It comes across as one of them.

crom said @ 7:11pm GMT on 12th Jan Thanks for your insight?

foobar said @ 7:35pm GMT on 12th Jan Yes, but we still do it.

theolypse said @ 7:37pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Interesting] People care a lot about their role. More than you do, maybe. But most people do care a great deal about their perception and the recognition of their felt identity. The countermessage, "You're just pretending. You don't know what you are. Your decisions about yourself are less important than the decisions others make about you," is a pretty significant and painful part of life for a large majority of the transgendered population. Since really, calling this girl a boy only serves to indicate--and only probably, since she could have had one of many intersex conditions all along for all we know--what her genotype is, I can't see any legitimate justification for applying that pompous and invasive message. I mean, what the hell does it matter in common interactions what her genotype is? No one will know, and no one needs to know.

crom said @ 8:03pm GMT on 12th Jan I can see why genotype really doesn't matter, and genital phenotype only matters in certain very intimate circumstances. I certainly don't think transgendered people are pretending to be something they're not. I guess the problem I have is that if you don't use sex to determine who is a boy and who is a girl, then what exactly does it mean to be one or the other? All that seems (to me) to be left is a group of disagreeable stereotypes: boys wear pants, play sports, grow up to be soldiers and scientists. Girls wear dresses, enjoy baking, and grow up to be nurses and waitresses and wives. Very 20th century. I would never tell a kid (or adult for that matter) that they shouldn't wear a dress or play a sport because they had the wrong sex organs. But I also wouldn't tell them that wanting to do those things puts them in a different gender label box. But then I'm a white male heterosexual who has never really had a desire to step outside my expected gender role, so please forgive my confusion.

theolypse said @ 8:15pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Informative] But you're also a white male heterosexual who's embracing the notion that gender is almost completely arbitrary, at this point. That may make you feel behind some curve, but I think you're actually well ahead. "Then why even bother HAVING a gender if you don't just take the one you defaulted into?" you ask, and indeed, a fair number of people situate themselves outside that categorization entirely. Those ones have largely reclaimed the term "queer" and use it proudly. The overwhelming majority of folks, like yourself, do feel quite comfortable inhabiting the social space they were born into. Of those who don't, I suspect that most just put up with it. Of those who can't or won't, it seems that a majority feel they would be most comfortable inhabiting the social space prescribed for the opposite sex. Why? I don't know. Or more accurately, I can only speculate, because it's a deep and pervasive idea that is influenced by every aspect of my social environment, and also of yours. Gender socialization, like any identity development, is like entropy: every interaction adds to it. Sociology at large is only recently coming to terms with the idea that gender is not inextricably dependent on genitals, and so has not yet adequately answered the questions you're asking. I hope it does soon, and my own career will hopefully shed light on the topic, though it won't be central to my research. For now, however, it seems most reasonable to accept that there is something to sex and gender roles that exists as a gestalt, beyond any specific preferred activities, and which is heavily influenced by social connections and recognition. It's almost totally immaterial to me, personally, but it means a lot to some people. I want to contribute to the explorations that clarify this confusing subject, and I won't do that by applying condemnation or limiting the range of expressions and experiences people adopt.

skainsmate said @ 9:25pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Informative] There is more to identifying as a woman than just enjoying girly things. In fact, there are tomboy trans women and sissy trans men. It's not solely about wearing dresses or playing sports. One of the many things about being a woman that I celebrate is having a soft bosom to snuggle babies, kittens, and close friends against. I've been trying to leave intercourse out of this conversation, but can you honestly say that a bedroom encounter between two biologically male bodies cannot be considered unsatisfying to someone who desires to be female? You say you would never someone that their interest in hobbies puts them in a different gender label box, but you can't see how hurtful it is to label them in a way that places their random chromosomal circumstance above their personal feelings.

crom said @ 10:17pm GMT on 12th Jan OK so it sounds like you're saying that it's not about the roles, it really is about the physical differences (soft bosom, sex parts). But it's about the attributes you want, not the attributes you have. I'm sure this is a cliched question, but if it's hurtful to label gender according to physical reality, how about other characteristics? If a person wants to be black, or tall, or handsome, or blond, should I be expected to refer to him as such? I just don't understand why being a girl/boy is up to you, but your height is up to a measuring tape. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I would like to understand.

skainsmate said @ 10:27pm GMT on 12th Jan I said it's not ONLY about the roles, but that it's ALSO about physical differences. You're trying to distill very complex feelings into something you can argue against. I can't believe I'm about to dignify your comparison of body dysmorphia to hair color, but if I dyed my hair blonde the respectful thing to do is to consider me a blonde. Why would you continue to call someone in that situation a brunette? Spite? I guess you should stop trying to understand and work on just trying to accept.

crom said @ 10:38pm GMT on 12th Jan You went with hair color because that's the one that's easy to change, but what about height or ethnicity? If your hair is brown but you feel blond, does that mean you are blond? Obviously not (right?), so what is it about gender that makes it different?

skainsmate said @ 11:21pm GMT on 12th Jan And you went with not answering me despite my continuing attempts to answer you. If you are truly trying to understand me and not just trying to "win" this discussion, you're doing a poor job of showing it. Why is it important to you that you get to call me a guy? Why is it more important than the fact that I am on the verge of tears right now? Stop being so concerned with what makes me a woman, and show a little concern for what would make you a decent person.

skainsmate said @ 11:34pm GMT on 12th Jan Do you think there is a single other physical characteristic that affects the way people perceive themselves and others than sex? If you truly believe hair color and height and even skin color have as much cultural and psychological sway as gender, then your insistence that I continue to humor your comparison is less insulting. How about you think for a minute, REALLY think about how your gender will affect every day for the rest of your life. Yeah, it's exactly the same as your height, isn't it? Show some fucking compassion.

foobar said @ 11:42pm GMT on 12th Jan *hug*

skainsmate said @ 11:57pm GMT on 12th Jan :( :| :)

skainsmate said @ 11:52pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2] Think about pronouns. Do we have pronouns that remind people how ugly they are every time we use them? The color of their hair? Their height? Their race? No. There is only one trait that language has determined we need to be informed of every time we refer to someone. If you still can't see how upsetting it is to be compared to someone who wishes they were taller, then I am done speaking with you.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:24am GMT on 13th Jan Blondie, shortie, and whitey come to mind.

skainsmate said @ 2:32am GMT on 13th Jan Those are not pronouns. They are not 1/100000 as common as "he" and "she."

snowfox said @ 3:45am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] IMHO, it is not about physical traits at all. It is about social status. "He" and "She" confer different social statuses, different ways of being viewed and treated. If the only perceived difference between the genders was the body, we wouldn't have so many of the social problems we do. A personal story: I used to think I wanted to be a man. Sometime in the last year or so, I realized that I just hated being treated like a woman. It opened a massive can of worms for me. The fact that there is any semantic meaning to "being treated like a man/woman" is the key to my gender issues. The day I realized that I define what a woman is, not the other way around, the world changed for me. I don't think I even hate my breasts, I hate the way people act like I don't own them, like they exist for the pleasure of others. That's what disgusts me about them, that people use them as an invitation to objectify me and make me less than equal, less than human. I see the same sorts of things happening to men all the time. Almost every commercial I see manages to be sexist against women, men, or both. Every instance of sexism hurts both genders.

happiest_sadist said @ 12:14am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] "Race", or rather the phenotypical characteristics of ethnicity, has an impact on daily life which is certainly in the ball park with that of gender in certain contexts. Sexual and gender issues are important, but they aren't necessarily more important than other issues, just more widespread (everyone's got 'em). tl;dr Please calm down and stop assuming malice on the part of others.

crom said @ 1:55am GMT on 13th Jan I don't think hair color or height or skin color have as much cultural and psychological sway as gender, but I also don't think they have none. Believe it or not, people get very upset about their height, their hair, and their skin, to the point of mental breakdowns and/or doing crazy dangerous things to change themselves. Point to pretty much any bodily attribute and you can probably find someone somewhere who feels that their shortcoming in that area ruined their life.

crom said @ 1:21am GMT on 13th Jan I'm sorry, I missed your question. I wouldn't call someone with blond hair a brunette. If your hair is blond you're a blond, whether you dye it or not.

skainsmate said @ 2:42am GMT on 13th Jan So your issue is solely with calling trans women "she" BEFORE they have surgery.

skainsmate said @ 3:08am GMT on 13th Jan Also, what is the difference between the dye in her hair and the makeup, clothes, hormones, electrolysis, etc. of a trans woman?

skainsmate said @ 10:33pm GMT on 14th Jan Still waiting on the reason you respect dyed blondes more than transgenders.

crom said @ 3:33am GMT on 15th Jan When did you stop beating your wife? There's no reason because I don't disrespect either group. But to answer your original, polite question, there's no difference at all. I'm quite happy to refer to a person as what they appear to be. But that's not necessarily the same as what they want to be.

crom said @ 3:46am GMT on 13th Jan Really my issue is with an imprecise and apparently careless definition of the word "woman". If you define being a woman by what you wear, then I guess putting on a dress is all that's required. If you define it by outward appearance of genitalia, then an operation should do the trick. If you prefer a genetic definition then a man becoming a woman is beyond our current technology. What bugs me is that you don't seem to use any of those yardsticks, and I can't seem to figure out just what it is that you think makes the difference between a woman and a man. You refer to physical and behavioral characteristics, but none of them is necessary or sufficient. My impression is that all that's required for you to consider someone a woman (or a man) is a desire to be one. But if that's the case, doesn't the word become essentially meaningless?

crom said @ 1:47am GMT on 13th Jan I'm very sorry if I've caused you any emotional distress, I promise you that was not my intention. I'm not trying to "win" anything, I'm really just trying to understand. You asked why it's important to me to call you a guy; it's not. But my understanding of that word tells me that if you have certain anatomical features then that is the word that describes you. For me to think of a person with a penis and testicles as a woman, I need to completely revise my idea of what a woman is. We've already established that a person doesn't have to dress like a woman or conform to other stereotypes to be considered a woman. Does one have to want a soft bosom? Or a vagina? Does one have to want to give birth? If person wants none of those things but still feels that they are a woman, is that enough? And at that point, what does the word even mean? Why hang onto "woman" and "man" if all they are is a choice of which pronoun set describes you?

skainsmate said @ 2:36am GMT on 13th Jan "If person wants none of those things but still feels that they are a woman, is that enough?" Yes.

skainsmate said @ 3:05am GMT on 13th Jan This hypothetical person is pretty unusual, though. I'm not sure why she would choose to transition.

snowfox said @ 3:49am GMT on 13th Jan Open your mind just a little further then. You're on the right track but you need to start imagining people who feel they are women but want none of the things society thinks women should want. Only then will you be free.

eggboy said @ 4:16am GMT on 13th Jan Only then will you be free?

snowfox said @ 4:44pm GMT on 13th Jan When you realize that there are no masculine or feminine desires and traits, that these are merely features of people, then you are no longer bound to social expectations of gender. I'd call that free. What do you call it?

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:22am GMT on 13th Jan Free your mind and your ass will follow. Also, there are biological women who want none of the things society thinks women should want, so why should trans women be any different?

crom said @ 3:49am GMT on 13th Jan If you can want none of those things and be a woman, can you want all of them and be a man? And if so, why is it so important which word we use to describe you?

skainsmate said @ 4:03am GMT on 13th Jan Because it would show that, unlike the vast majority of people I encounter, you respect my mental model of myself. If it's not important, why wouldn't you just use the word that doesn't cause me pain? (I must also reiterate that the hypothetical person you gave is unrealistic as someone who wants to be defined as "woman." You continuing to use her as fuel for your argument is questionable.) I can see I'm not getting through to you. I'm done. Have fun in this thread, everybody.

crom said @ 5:18am GMT on 13th Jan If it's not important, why wouldn't you just use the word that doesn't cause me pain? Because the word you want me to use instead already has a meaning, and it would make my statements factually inaccurate.

tiemy said @ 7:35am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] if somebody looks like a woman, acts like a woman and wants to be called a woman, who the f cares? call her a woman

crom said @ 7:49am GMT on 13th Jan But I really like being told ahead of time whether a person has a penis. You're talking about a drastic change to the meaning of some extremely ancient words, and I feel that my interests (as an appreciator of only certain forms of genitalia) are best served by keeping them the way they are. When science makes genitals more easily customizable, I will happily reconsider my position.

papango said @ 8:05am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] Your position is that your interest in a persons genitals should outweigh their own conception of themselves. That's some staggering self-centeredness you've got there. You're never going to meet skainsmate, and yet you feel your 'appreciation of only certain genitalia' precludes you from respecting her identity as a woman because you don't know what she's got under her skirt. I can't even with that.

crom said @ 5:37pm GMT on 13th Jan I'm not asking anyone to change anything, and I'm happy to respect her identity as whatever she chooses to be. But when you make the request that I change my use of our common language in a way that does not improve its utility (for me) of course I will respectfully decline.

azazel said @ 7:04pm GMT on 13th Jan I'm sorry, but calling it 'respectfully' is just bullshit. If you did respect the person you'd do what they wanted instead.

crom said @ 11:00pm GMT on 13th Jan I respectfully disagree.

sacrelicious said @ 7:11pm GMT on 13th Jan "Nigger" is more utilitarian than "African American" because it has fewer syllables. why are you not fighting for your right to use "Nigger" in casual conversation?

crom said @ 11:07pm GMT on 13th Jan Because "Nigger" is a word designed to hurt and belittle, obviously.

azazel said @ 12:38am GMT on 14th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] But calling someone identifying as female male is hurtful and could be considered belittling as well, especially if you do it when you know they want to be called female.

crom said @ 12:47am GMT on 14th Jan I guess I'm still having trouble getting past the idea that male and female are things that you are, rather than things that you identify with. Like height, weight, or skin color. I would never call a dark skinned African a nigger, but I also wouldn't be comfortable calling him white.

papango said @ 12:15am GMT on 14th Jan It's not about you. And it's not 'our common language' if you're the only one who gets to decide the definitions.

crom said @ 12:40am GMT on 14th Jan OK so please enlighten me. What are the definitions of "man" and "woman" that I should be using?

papango said @ 12:47am GMT on 14th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] As has been pointed out to you many times in this thread. If a person looks like a woman, acts like a woman and wants to be called a woman, then it is polite to refer to her as a woman. And the reverse for someone who looks, acts and identifies as a man. This is easy because the gender signifiers are pretty obvious, and consistent because at this point in time you're only debating with skainsmate because you know her circumstances, you're not checking with anybody else on the state of their bits and pieces before you decide what to call them. You referred to my aunt as 'she' with no problems based on my use of the female term, why is it so hard to extend that courtesy to skainsmate?

snowfox said @ 7:02am GMT on 14th Jan Looks like and acts like don't need to be there. Anyone who wants to be called a woman should be called a woman.

crom said @ 8:35pm GMT on 14th Jan I do extend that courtesy to her, of course. Please stop trying to make this personal. It's not clear from your definition if looking like and acting like are necessary to be called a woman, or if you just threw those in for color and all that's really important is identify with. If the former, then you're broadly excluding anyone who doesn't conform to their gender stereotype. I'm not going to tell a girl she's a boy because she likes to wear pants and play sports and do math. If the latter, then essentially your definition boils down to "a girl is anyone who wants to be a girl", making it a useless language concept. If gender is a self-applied label with no inherent qualifications or characteristics, why should it be restricted to just "girl" and "boy"? Would you support letting everyone make up their own gender name and pronoun? And does this only apply to gender? What about other characteristics that formerly depended on biology, such as height, weight, skin color, or species. There are human beings out there (they're not that hard to find) who would really really prefer to be horses. Are they horses?

yevishere said @ 1:56am GMT on 15th Jan I think the issue is of labels that we put on the world. Gender, such as "male" or "female" are very universal and deep rooted. There are general biological differences that apply to ALMOST everyone that is fact that you CANNOT argue. These labels FIT. They come with a metric fuckton of baggage, and also very specific information that directs our actions towards a particular person. If we did not have them, we would be deprived of very important and meaningful label which informs our decisions. These decisions go deeper than society, they go to our DNA and very biology, and are critical for our own survival and survival of our genes. On the other hand there are people who's internal label of themselves, is not the same as the label that people apply to them. Because, we are social creatures being mislabeled or misidentified causes us very real pain. For the people with that "mislabeling" issue I say, "I am sorry, but you cannot change everyones very useful label. My advice is for you to stop giving a shit what other people think. If you can't then I am very sorry indeed that you have to live your life in constant struggle and pain that sometimes ends in suicide."

papango said @ 4:16am GMT on 13th Jan Basic human decency and good manners. You can argue all day about wanting to call people by what you think they should identify as, but all you're really proving is that whoever raised you dropped the ball on politeness.

crom said @ 5:10am GMT on 13th Jan Please don't presume impoliteness just because I want to know the meaning of the words I use. Would you apply the same standard if a person insisted on being recorded as a different height because that is the height they identify with?

papango said @ 5:29am GMT on 13th Jan My issue, I think, is that it seems to me that you have already decided on the meaning of words, and you don't seem to be allowing for any different meanings. It's not about what you think a person should be, it's about how they identify. I think your question "why is it so important which word we use to describe you?" is really rude. It's important to skainsmate, why isn't that enough? Why does she have to prove herself to you? Is this something you demand of all women before you use the female pronoun? Or just the ones that don't fit your idea of what it means to be a woman? Do you want my gyno records to be sure I'm enough of a women to count as one? Interestingly, I have an aunt who is 4feet 11inches tall. She describes herself as five feet tall. This is not technically true, I have measured this woman and she is not five feet tall, she is a full inch shorter than that. However, she prefers to describe herself as five feet tall, and since it makes no difference to my life how tall she is, I go along with it. Why shouldn't I? I don't mean to compare my aunt and her imaginary inch to the actual difficulties of being trans-gendered. But to show that it would be ridiculous for me to make a big deal of it. If I were to insist she go by her true height, I would then have to start measuring every one else I know who gives me their height, and that would be stupid.

crom said @ 8:04am GMT on 13th Jan OK first, if your aunt knows how tall she is why were you measuring her? Second, did you tell her your actual measurement or did you tell her five feet? Third, I would never insist that anyone go by their true anything, but that doesn't mean that I am obligated to use their preferred mode of address.

papango said @ 12:17am GMT on 14th Jan One, because she claimed to be taller than my grandmother, so we measured them both. Two, we told her the actual measurement. It was a competition and she was amongst family. It was a safe environment for her to be in. Three, you've decided that trans-people don't deserve your respect and that's fine. I'm not obligated to think or refer to you as anything other than a raging asshole.

crom said @ 8:36pm GMT on 14th Jan Please don't tell me who I do and do not respect.

papango said @ 8:40pm GMT on 14th Jan And yet ... you want to be able to tell people who they are?

crom said @ 3:36am GMT on 15th Jan No. No, I don't. You are projecting that onto me.

papango said @ 3:58am GMT on 15th Jan "But my understanding of that word tells me that if you have certain anatomical features then that is the word that describes you." Those are your words as you told skainsmate that she can only be what you've decided she is. I have decided, based on shared language and my incredibly arrogant presumption that my definition of words is more important than anything else, that you're a disrespectful asshole. You want to be considered as respectful, but there's just too much foulness going on under your metaphorical skirt for me to consider that appropriate.

crom said @ 6:46am GMT on 15th Jan I'm sorry we couldn't have a civil discussion.

papango said @ 4:14am GMT on 13th Jan I need to completely revise my idea of what a woman is. Yes. Yes you do. And you need to understand that your definition of what a women is, isn't the only one out there. If someone identifies as female, continuing to refer to them as male because 'that's how I see you' is just obnoxious. You're also overlooking the biological differences in the brain. Not all aspects of gender are social constructs (it's usually just the shallow ones you mentioned like clothes and stereotypes). And finally, your idea of what it takes to be a woman (a bosom and wanting a baby?) is crazy. If you want to continue to look into this you need to see beyond the things you think make up female-ness and get a better understanding of how gender identity works.

crom said @ 5:19am GMT on 13th Jan I don't think being a woman means having a bosom and/or wanting a baby. You completely misread my comment.

the circus said @ 11:55pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] (looking for a chance to slip this in here) Ethnicity is vague, a collection of features, and so is gender (or sex, I'm getting the terms confused). AFAIK the genes for a vagina and the genes for a prostate are not mutually exclusive, but certain combinations are much more sucessful at reproducing. Wouldn't be easier to consider that about 45% (or fewer) of people conform well to a male concept, about 45% (or fewer) of people conform well to a female concept, and about 10% (or more) of people exhibit some vague or contradictory gender features? I wouldn't begrudge anyone for wanting to be closer to one end of the spectrum any more than I would for not wanting to move closer to one end of the spectrum.

hen3ry said @ 11:01am GMT on 14th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] I would also suggest that the variation within almost any grouping you choose to make with respect to gender is larger than the variation between the averages of the groups. As such, it stops being more than marginally useful to try to pigeonhole people. Why not just refer to people in such a way as to make them happiest? Sadly, English still has no good and widely accepted non-perjorative non-gendered pronouns, but that doesn't mean we can't just try and get along.

snowfox said @ 12:16am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] The soft bosom thing makes no sense to me, and actually seems harmful to women. It's like saying a woman without breasts is not really a woman. That's rather sexist.

crom said @ 1:28am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] That's exactly what bugs me about this whole discussion. Once you remove the biological phenotype elements from the picture (is a woman without a vagina still a woman?) you're left with basically picking from a basket of stereotypes and saying that's what constitutes manhood or womanhood.

theolypse said @ 4:20am GMT on 13th Jan As far as I can tell, that's actually how most people come to their understanding of the terms.

crom said @ 5:03am GMT on 13th Jan At least that's a manly way to about it.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:29am GMT on 13th Jan Soft bosom is a feminine trait because women's bosoms tend to be softer than men's. Small boobs doesn't make a woman less of a woman any more than lack of body hair makes a man less of a man. Humans are complicated creatures. There are many subtleties and nuances. They're what make us interesting.

snowfox said @ 3:17am GMT on 13th Jan Pardon me if I am offended by having that listed as a defining trait that makes me a woman. Maybe I think intelligence, dedication, and compassion make me a woman. And they make me a human being too. I am NOT my body.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:34am GMT on 13th Jan I never said you were. That's why I said "tend to be", not "are". Bodies are merely its owner's interface to the world. Besides, men can be intelligent, dedicated, and compassionate, too. And there are plenty of humans who aren't intelligent, dedicated, and compassionate. Like I said, humans are complicated creatures.

snowfox said @ 4:31pm GMT on 13th Jan I never said they couldn't. My whole point is that the same things that define me as a human being define me as a woman. There are no feminine or masculine personality traits -- it is all just a social construct with no further utility for our species.

Naruki said @ 3:52am GMT on 14th Jan If it doesn't generally represent the group, then it does not, by definition, define that group. So saying that something that makes you unique "defines you as a woman (or human, or whatever other non-unique group)" is idiotic. But he said "soft bosom", and that -- I hate to be the one to break this to you -- is not a personality trait. It's a physical trait, and it generally represent women as opposed to men. tl;dr: He was right, you were wrong, way to play to the stereotype.

skainsmate said @ 2:40am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] I was giving examples of things I celebrate about my own femininity. You are welcome to your own.

skainsmate said @ 2:48am GMT on 13th Jan Also, I am baffled that you would claim that I wouldn't consider someone a woman because she didn't have the right body parts.

snowfox said @ 3:17am GMT on 13th Jan That is what I gathered, that you were listing a physical trait as a defining feature of womanhood. It is insulting.

skainsmate said @ 3:54am GMT on 13th Jan Show me where I claimed it as a "defining feature of womanhood." I was making a point of listing physical traits I considered feminine in response to people discussing transition as if it were solely about liking Barbie dolls over G.I. Joes and as if body image had nothing to do with it. Why are you insisting on being offended? Broad shoulders aren't considered feminine, and neither are flat chests. Nor are large hands. Nor are square jaws. Soft chests aren't considered masculine, and neither are rounded hips. Nor are dainty feet. Nor are high voices. That's not a slight on anybody who has or does not have such things. Here I thought I was being the overly-sensitive person in this thread.

snowfox said @ 4:03am GMT on 13th Jan Right here You are welcome to claim you misphrased it and I will accept that answer, but don't claim you did not say it. If you do not understand why being defined by my body is offensive, you do not understand what it is to be a woman. Women have historically been objectified and reduced to nothing more than their physical traits, so it is a sensitive topic all on its own whether I think anything about it or not.

skainsmate said @ 4:18am GMT on 13th Jan I could have been clearer with my phrasing. It is a trait that I happen to associate with femininity. I am not alone in this. The majority of my transition, however, has been about the internal rather than the external. I was, in that one comment, branching off into talking about the physical in direct response to people talking about transgenderism as something solely about the internal. I was presenting another side to the issue. How could I reduce womanhood to nothing but physical traits in a post where I defend a little girl's right to be a girl despite her body? Now I need to go do something else before I lose it.

snowfox said @ 4:27am GMT on 13th Jan Calm down. We're just having a discussion.

pleaides said @ 5:38am GMT on 13th Jan Come on, clearly we're talking about something that cuts pretty damn close to the bone for skainsmate. I strongly doubt that I'd have the courage to do what she's doing.

snowfox said @ 4:42pm GMT on 13th Jan Remember, she is but one voice of many. She cannot speak for all women, nor can I.

pleaides said @ 3:00am GMT on 14th Jan Good point

rezties said @ 3:34am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] Trans fats make everything delicious!

happiest_sadist said @ 12:20am GMT on 13th Jan Trance fads make everyone dizzy!

sacrelicious said @ 3:38am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] sounds like someone's going for her Self-Righteous Bitch merit badge...

mechanical contrivance said @ 3:54am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Interesting] Maybe there's a transgendered girl in her troop who is the only one with more merit badges than her. She just can't stand being number 2, like Bono.

sacrelicious said @ 4:25am GMT on 12th Jan it's a classic scorched-earth tactic. "sell more cookies than me willya? fine, I'll make sure NOBODY sells any cookies this year!"

sacrelicious said @ 3:45am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] this is the anti-GLBT movement's Waterloo. try to make people choose between your agenda and Thin Mints, sorry, people are gonna go for the Thin Mints every time. fuck, I need some Thin Mints NOW!

mechanical contrivance said @ 3:55am GMT on 12th Jan How about a slice of quiche?

rndmnmbr said @ 4:32am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2] FUCK YOU! THIN MINTS!

KingPellinore said @ 5:50pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] FUCK THAT SHIT! PABST BLUE RIBBON!

bruceski said @ 8:45am GMT on 12th Jan My only regret about Girl Scout cookies is that I am allergic to so many of them. The Trefoils are delicious tho. Just put one on the tongue and let it melt in your mouth *drool*

skainsmate said @ 4:28am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Underrated] Here is the top video response to her.

Kat said @ 4:28am GMT on 12th Jan So...she knows that the Boy Scouts have been allowing female member for years, and that the who gender argument is bullcrap, right?

papango said @ 4:54am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:3] I dunno. The local Girl Guides here are female only and they justify that by saying that there are plenty of co-ed organisations (like the Boy Scouts), and they offer a safe and supportive environment for girls to be themselves. Which, to me, sounds like exactly the sort of place a trans-gendered girl would really benefit from.

scojam said @ 6:07am GMT on 12th Jan She is supporting the first girl who aid transgendered boys cannot relate wwith girls. This girl is saying the same thing.

papango said @ 6:10am GMT on 12th Jan ?

skainsmate said @ 3:29pm GMT on 12th Jan Again, someone who was born with male genitals but expresses herself as female is a transgendered girl.

Kat said @ 6:44am GMT on 12th Jan Given that the Boy Scout and Girl Scouts are pretty much a paired set of organizations... A little history on the Girl Scouts.

papango said @ 7:09am GMT on 12th Jan Yeah, but they made the Boy Scouts here take girls. So they're co-ed now, and just called Scouts. The Girl Guides are still just girls.

Kat said @ 7:42am GMT on 12th Jan Yes, I understand your point. My point is that this protest involves two organizations that have a link within their country, and that one of those two groups is taking girls into their fold and still referring to themselves as the Boy Scouts. As such, and given their linked histories together in the States, I find the idea of trying to play the "we're all scouts of the same gender and anything different is wrong" argument seem less than ideal.

the circus said @ 12:03am GMT on 13th Jan Something something "Clearly Defined Gender Scouts". Something something "Gender Scouts" just sounds creepy.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:31am GMT on 13th Jan "Gender Scouts" sounds like a bunch of uptight people in uniforms who go around checking for Y chromosomes.

sacrelicious said @ 2:49am GMT on 13th Jan "Gender Scouts" sounds like local frontiersmen who go on ahead of advancing armies to report on the genders of the opposing forces.

crom said @ 3:53am GMT on 13th Jan I see Hollywood executives trolling seedy nightclubs for new and interesting genders to exploit on next season's reality TV.

ENZ said @ 4:33am GMT on 12th Jan "I think I fucked up some HTML. test. Feel free to downmod this or any other comment I made in this thread if i did.

atter_cob said @ 4:33am GMT on 12th Jan Fucking homophobes. She's just mad because she's not as good looking as some of the ladyboys.

GordonGuano said @ 5:24am GMT on 12th Jan You really don't want to open the can of worms that is tween girls and appearance/body issues.

atter_cob said @ 5:34am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Funny] When the tweens act like decent people then fine, I'll tiptoe around their issues. When they act like bitchy bigots then I'll happily point out that they are fat, have no tits, and lots of acne. If you want people to be nice to you then start by being nice to others. (Yes, the colloary is that I'm not being nice to the bitchy tween so I can't expect people to be nice to me. I'm ok with that.)

GordonGuano said @ 6:26am GMT on 12th Jan I was just imagining the fundies and Teatards and PFLAG and feminists and whoever else is in this fracas putting aside their differences to attack you :D

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:40am GMT on 12th Jan No wait. I've seen this episode. This is the one were the little boy dresses up like a girl and joins the girl scouts and heads the "anti-transgender" movement within the girlscouts... right? Cause I'm pretty sure that Tylor chick has male plumbing.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:05am GMT on 12th Jan (and while there ain't a damn thing wrong with that, the inconvenience to others that her methods are causing are quite scandalous) I think I should start a "No bitches in the girlscouts" group to evict her.

GordonGuano said @ 5:02am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2] Fred Rogers would set her shit straight in a hot minute and be totally gentle while doing it.

willrogers said @ 9:25am GMT on 12th Jan Yeah, but there are plenty of people that still don't listen, like all those homophobes who protested Fred's funeral because he promoted acceptance.

Bodnoirbabe said @ 5:03am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] What a cunt.

paul_austin0816 said @ 5:27am GMT on 12th Jan I think we can all agree...cookie munching for the win, whether you find it in a cardboard box or panties....munchers unite!!

willrogers said @ 9:55am GMT on 12th Jan Is it just me, or are this girl's comments about "safety" implying that the transgender scouts are going to rape her and other scouts?

sacrelicious said @ 10:15am GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Funny] natch. it's the oldest game in the book: pretend to be transgender, suffer enormous cultural stigma, develop severe social anxiety, put yourself at great risk of being assaulted and even murdered, knowing that if either happens the police will generally do little to follow up or investigate cause you're "just another tranny that got beat up/murdered", but man, it's all worth it, cause once you're alone in a room with a bunch of trusting women... KA-CHING! rape dollars! you can't look me in the eye and tell me that's not easier than just buying a weapon and dragging some woman off the street into an alley. how would a rapist even go about that? I mean, the logistics alone!

Ebichuman said @ 10:43am GMT on 12th Jan "KA-CHING! rape dollars!" I'm going to have to try to work this into a conversation today. ...I ...work at a law firm...

sacrelicious said @ 11:58am GMT on 12th Jan "so I just met with a client who wants us to defend him against charges of rape. KA-CHING! rape dollars!"

Ebichuman said @ 12:33pm GMT on 12th Jan Sigh... If only...

sacrelicious said @ 12:41pm GMT on 12th Jan buck up, li'l lawyer, people rape people all that time. I'm sure you'll find one.

assbastard said @ 10:19pm GMT on 12th Jan "KA-CHING! rape dollars!" TAGLINE.

happiest_sadist said @ 12:40am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Funny] I wanted to save up some rape dollars, but I couldn't bring myself to make a deposit.

sacrelicious said @ 2:59am GMT on 13th Jan ironically, they aren't rape dollars if they accrue interest.

Omegaphobic said @ 11:09pm GMT on 13th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] Triggerline!

azazel said @ 10:34am GMT on 12th Jan So I've been curious about cross-dressing for a while -- mostly because it seems like fun (is there anything wrong with that?), but I just can't shave without leaving a shadow (on my chin, that is). Anyone have any idea how to deal with that? (Explaining this to the gf might be a bigger problem :P )

tickaz said @ 12:08pm GMT on 12th Jan But leaving the shadow there is what makes cross dressing awesome.

tickaz said @ 12:10pm GMT on 12th Jan

sacrelicious said @ 12:16pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:2 Insightful] if you're thinking about experimenting with crossdressing, why not just tell your girlfriend "hey, I've been thinking about experimenting with crossdressing" before she starts finding women's clothes in your stuff and freaks out all over your shit? I mean, think about it: you have nothing to lose. if that's a deal-breaker, she's probably gonna find out anyway (the afor-mentioned finding women's clothes in your stuff, and heaven forbid you start shaving your legs, what;s the plan there? tell her you just started training for competitive swimming out of the blue?), and it ain't gonna be any less of a dealbreaker if you hid it from her. in fact, the hiding itself is only an additional potential dealbreaker. on the other hand, if she's cool with it maybe she can give you helpful makeup tips for covering that shadow. so in conclusion: nothing to lose you wouldn't lose anyway, and everything to gain. so if you really wanna try crossdressing, you gotta get her in on it. write to Dan Savage, he'll tell you the same.

azazel said @ 12:33pm GMT on 12th Jan Yeah, I know. It's not the easiest subject to bring up though.

sacrelicious said @ 12:51pm GMT on 12th Jan [Score:4 Insightful] you wanna know how to bring it up? she wears one of your dress shirts around the house, you wear one of her blouses! she wears a pair of your boxers, you wear a pair of her panties! that's the Chicago way! in all seriousness though, you can either bite the bullet and bring it up straightforward-like, serious sit-down conversation just like you're terrified of doing, or bring it up casually, in the spirit of fun. like "hey, why don't we try this sometime? that'd be a kick, huh?" but make no mistake: those are your two choices. the other thing is not a choice, it's an accident waiting to happen.

devilsad said @ 9:30pm GMT on 12th Jan Sorry sac, this is terrible advice. "You have nothing to lose?" How about a girlfriend who really, really likes all the other parts of you but will freak out over some of the more 'out there' interests you have? Maybe for a charming sex god such as yourself, getting a new girlfriend is as difficult as tying your shoelaces, but for some of us, it's easier to keep a secret than to spend yet more decades hunting for someone that is reasonably compatible and doesn't run screaming when they wake up next to you in the morning. Not everyone can be with their perfect other half that accepts and loves all your quirks. Sometimes 95% is good enough.

dreamingzephyr said @ 9:57pm GMT on 12th Jan That's pretty depressing. I should hope your girlfriend would love you enough to bother trying to get comfortable with an aspect of your personality that confuses her at first. Though to be honest, I don't see it as being that big a potential problem. We get to wear "guy clothes" anytime we want with no one batting an eye, plus most many of us really enjoying dressing up and helping others to look nice. Giving make-overs is fun! None of my male lovers have ever been into crossdressing, but I think I'd enjoy helping him if one ever was.

devilsad said @ 10:21pm GMT on 12th Jan Ah, if only it were so simple as just one unusual fantasy, it wouldn't be so hard. It's quite likely that you could meet someone who was agreeable to you and also into that kind of thing within the 20 or so years between puberty and desperationville. But two or three things like that really reduces your chances of finding someone into all of them..

crom said @ 10:32pm GMT on 12th Jan A person doesn't need to be into every aspect of your crazy fantasies to be into you, just accept them. If you think a fulfilling relationship is one in which you have to hide who you really are forever then more power too you I guess, but personally I'd rather be alone. Bummer for the girl you're lying to though.

tiemy said @ 12:05am GMT on 13th Jan they don't need to be into any of it. they need to just not be such a twit as to make something so (if you think about it) meaningless, arbitrary and un-reflective of your value as a person a condition of having a relationship with you.

azazel said @ 11:03pm GMT on 12th Jan You'd hope that, but I'm a bit worried none the less. Lately I've noticed that there are sides of her that are, to put it bluntly, worrying. She's shallow ("I can't watch movies without good-looking actors"), she's sexist ("If we get a boy I'm going to force him to play football whether he wants it or not; I don't want him to become a shut-in that only reads books") and she's overprotective (which I'm very glad my parents will balance out), and she considers money more important than happiness (I mentioned maybe changing what I'm studying because I don't enjoy economics that much, and she basically said "but it pays so well"). I'm not perfect either by any means, but I'll just say it right here and now: my kids should be damn happy that I'll be there for them, because otherwise they'll grow up spoiled and shallow. Anyway, can you really see someone like that accepting anything but the norm?

crom said @ 11:08pm GMT on 12th Jan Do you already have kids with this woman you despise?

tiemy said @ 12:12am GMT on 13th Jan if shes such a stuck-up twat, why are you with her? are there other redeeming qualities? in general worldview / values clashes are a very bad foundation for relationships, which are hard enough even without them. putting up with that (and then trying to repress perfectly acceptable parts of who you are/what you want to do because of it) long-term will just make you miserable.

sacrelicious said @ 12:16am GMT on 13th Jan allow me to amend my advice: bring it up tomorrow, and bluntly and damagingly as possible. not so much to clear the air, but really more because she sounds absolutely terrible for you, and this relationship is already doomed anyway, and the sooner it's over the better chance you'll have of finding someone you actually fit with. ditch that zeroine and get with a heroine!

theolypse said @ 4:29am GMT on 13th Jan I wanted to upmod this, but then I read that execrable final line.

sacrelicious said @ 4:36am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Informative] but that was my favorite part!

theolypse said @ 4:30am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] I think that calling those attitudes, if they are sincere, "worrying" is putting it gently.

sacrelicious said @ 4:41am GMT on 13th Jan I think calling them massive, "AOOOOOOGAAAAH, AOOOOOOOGAAAAH! flashing red flags with" with waving spotlights in the shape of the nuclear fallout symbols highlighting them would be a subtle suggestion that something may be awry.

eggboy said @ 4:33am GMT on 13th Jan If you do dress up, post trashy pics so we can judge you.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:41am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] YOU WILL BE JUDGED

arrowhen said @ 5:30pm GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Insightful] I'm probably going to sound like kind of a dick, because, well, I'm kind of a dick, but why on earth would you want to be with a shallow sexist who values money over happiness?

sacrelicious said @ 12:10am GMT on 13th Jan you missed a very important set of words: "nothing to lose... that you wouldn't lose anyway." this is a big secret. not just in gravity, but also in physical size. this secret entails concealing a whole wardrobe from a significant other, to say nothing of the lingering effects of makeup, and feminine-specific grooming such as leg-shaving. and while that might not be impossible to hide in a serious longterm relationship, it is highly improbable. and the fact is, as hard as so many have tried, very few have succeeded (and the bulk of those probably have a significant other in a state of such denial that she'll allow herself to believe any explanation to thank for that more than any subterfuge on their part). any crossdresser who really thinks he can get away with hiding it from a spouse or serious girlfriend is either James Bond, or he's fooling himself. and the consequences of getting caught is baaaad relationship juju. it would pretty much guarantee a big fight at least, and carries a severe risk of a bad, bad breakup. whereas the worst one can reasonably expect from being open and honest about it is an amicable breakup (while carrying a much greater potential than the alternatives of her being accepting of it). it's just bad relationship mojo to keep that sort of thing a secret. you're basically advocating letting a time bomb sit there waiting to go off on the off chance it'll be a dud, and as far as I'm concerned that's the irresponsible advice.

tiemy said @ 12:25am GMT on 13th Jan if it's just a girlfriend (wife or kids might complicate it a bit), his advice is perfectly sound. anyone who supposedly 'really really likes you' but is willing to ditch you over something so ridiculously petty and harmless either doesn't actually really like you or is such an irrational, uptight douche that you prolly (provided you don't fit that mold yourself) shouldn't be wasting your time with them in the first place. and don't rationalize with the forever alone BS. if there's some reason you can't find a mate, focus on fixing that - not trying to repress something that's really unhealthy to repress (and which repressing will make you miserable for absolutely no good reason).

eggboy said @ 4:32am GMT on 13th Jan For what it counts, I also agree with this.

buzhidao said @ 11:14am GMT on 12th Jan i feel unclean! i feel unclean!

Viking_Biochemist said @ 3:16pm GMT on 12th Jan I have a not-at-all smartassed question: In a jurisdiction where gay marriage is not yet legal, what happens if a trans person wishes to remain married to their existing spouse? eg: If both parties agree to continue the relationship, can a person who got married to a woman while legally classified as a man remain married when now legally classified as a woman? Or is the marriage automatically ended at the point where the trans spouse changes their officially recognised sex? Can anyone comment? I have a trans aunt, and am curious about what the rules are.

headlessfriar said @ 4:33pm GMT on 12th Jan I sincerely doubt the rules have been tested in a case like that, and should it happen and someone sees fit to take the marred couple to court over it, it would go all the way to the supreme court. I'd like to think my country's supreme court would find in favor of the couple, but you never know. As far as your legal system (are you Australian? Kiwi? I seem to remember that you were one of those) I really don't have the background to say.

theolypse said @ 4:37pm GMT on 12th Jan It depends on what squicks out the local lawmakers more, in practice. At least here it does.

papango said @ 4:30am GMT on 13th Jan I actually know a couple like this here in New Zealand. They were straight married, and then the male partner became a woman, and they remained married. They did have a re-commitment ceremony, but it was more of a 'this is how things are now' announcement party and celebration. As far as I'm aware, they did have to do something with Births Deaths and Marriages, but it was part of the broader stuff of transitioning (getting a birth certificate updated, new passport and drivers license, etc).

fz75 said @ 7:03pm GMT on 12th Jan Stupid little bitch,... Well-developed though

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:40pm GMT on 12th Jan Padded bra and the video went private. I'm not impressed.

sacrelicious said @ 7:51pm GMT on 12th Jan could be it went private because she suddenly realized that she just started a national campaign against a girl she knows and interacts with on a regular basis simply because this girl joined an organization to make new friends, and given some time to reflect on that decision she realized what a horrible thing that was to do. if that's the case I may be slightly impressed that she resisted the temptation to dig in her heels and try to justify it by escalating it, and in fact may be on her way to making amends.

theolypse said @ 8:16pm GMT on 12th Jan My cynicism won't let me believe you. But I do hope.

foobar said @ 1:05am GMT on 13th Jan My cynicism says someone told her she kicked the /b/hive.

ArthurPhilipDent said @ 9:30pm GMT on 12th Jan

snowfox said @ 12:27am GMT on 13th Jan I've noticed something... Men > Trans-Women > Women > Trans-Men I am not happy about it.

sacrelicious said @ 12:30am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Underrated] please show your work.

snowfox said @ 12:42am GMT on 13th Jan What have we spent most of this thread talking about? Are we orienting the discussion around biological women who become men, or around biological men who become women? Do you think it's fair? Do you think it's right?

foobar said @ 1:04am GMT on 13th Jan The video is about biological boys who are girls.

snowfox said @ 1:06am GMT on 13th Jan And I'm saying that's pretty much always the case. It isn't as if the reverse doesn't exist, but you don't see videos or articles about them. I don't know why I expected anyone here to care, but it bothers me.

sacrelicious said @ 1:20am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Informative] rebuttle: the most famous transsexual in popular culture is currently a trans-man. the only transsexual (that we know of at least) on network television is a trans-man. the only representation of any transsexual that I know of on network OR cable television that is not being portrayed by a non-trassexual is a trans-man (all of the above: Chas Bono) the most famous, popular, and mainstream award winning est Hollywood movie about trans issues is about a trans-man ("Boys Don't Cry"). and not necessarily directly a trans thing, but Kate Blanchett can portray Bob Dylan on film and have it categorized simply under the Indie section at most video stores, but if a man plays a woman in a leading role on film that movie will almost certainly be categorized under the "Gay and Lesbian" section in video stores that have it, and "Special Interest" in the ones that don't.

snowfox said @ 1:29am GMT on 13th Jan I suspect this is true not because people accept T-men, but because we ignore them. Why else don't we talk about them more? I'm curious if you know something I don't because I never got the message that it would be acceptable for me to switch gender. People always tell me what a shame and a waste it would be, which isn't cool.

sacrelicious said @ 1:51am GMT on 13th Jan I do not follow the logic that T-men currently have greater non-mocking representation in the mainstream media than T-women because we as a culture ignore them. it would seem to me that representation in the media would be evidence that the cultural zeitgeist isn't ignoring them. now twenty years ago I'd have agreed with your assessment. T-men were practically non-existent in the media back then. but as it currently stands that is not the case. as far as social pressure against switching genders, I don't think men or women have it that different. there is, however, a greater social stigma against men exhibiting feminine behavior ("you watch Sex In The City? what're you, a fag?") than their is for women (women wearing their boyfriend's clothes is considered cute, and terms such as "tomboy" to describe a little girl that prefers playing with toy trucks to dolls is more of a term of endearment, whereas a boy who prefers playing with dolls is derided as a "sissy"). in any case, you are right, it's not cool for people to tell you that. it's worth noting, however, that the people telling you that probably think they are complimenting you. that's not to say it's any less offensive, but it's not coming from a place of trying to be mean, so that should count for something. when the situation is reversed, however, men are more likely to be openly insulted to their face.

sacrelicious said @ 2:10am GMT on 13th Jan one reason for the greater media representation of T-men currently, I think, is that in the eyes of the general public transsexuality is synonymous with homosexuality (when in actual fact they are independent matters). being that mainstream public generally have a more positive attitude towards lesbianism than male homosexuality, this has extended to FTM transsexuals, who the public just consider to be lesbians.

snowfox said @ 3:15am GMT on 13th Jan Keep in mind, I grew up in the south. Tomboy was a bad word and McDonalds refused to give me the boys' toy. Although... I guess that WAS 20 years ago. Thing is, I still get told all the time to "dress more feminine" and to wear make-up. You make some valid points, but there is more stigma associated with not being stereotypically feminine that you might realize. As for the "shame" bit, I think it's really just a way of sexually objectifying me. I am not allowed to determine what happens to my tits because men like them. I don't see women telling men it would be a shame for them to switch genders. The closest we get to that is with gay men, who get a variant of the same speech. I respect your viewpoint, and suspect we have just had very different life experiences. I am probably very jaded and even a little bitter at this point, and it shows.

theolypse said @ 4:34am GMT on 13th Jan You have good points, but the prizing of femininity that has caused you so much trouble is not universal. In my experience, in fact, 'women who become men' are given the sort of grudging respect one might to someone who undergoes bizarre hardship to better themselves, whereas 'men who become women' are largely viewed as threatening freaks. I'd like to examine the cultural differences that might affect that balance, but I suspect it could become a very stressful discussion, right now.

snowfox said @ 4:40pm GMT on 13th Jan That's very simple, a woman becoming a man is taking a step up, while a man becoming a woman is taking a step down. This is because women are not valued as much as men in our society. Or at least, not valued in the same way. However, I still think trans women are more prominently featured in discussion and debate than trans men. There are some famous t-men, but they are seen, I think, as singular oddities rather than a collective or group. The whole thing is very complicated, I admit. I have friends who are trans-women and that certainly paints my perspective. Among the friends I have, they honestly seem to think that they are more important and more worthy of consideration than other women (at least every time they open their mouths about gender issues, it comes off that way). They complain constantly about males not being cheerleaders, but never complain about what women aren't allowed to do. It's clear they still have this pipedream notion of womanhood because they did not grow up as women and thus did not face the same sort of discrimination (they faced discrimination, to be sure, but of a different kind). At times I find myself taking offense, and I realize that it's very much parallel to African Americans hating it when whites hijack their culture. I don't know if it's right, but it's a visceral reaction. I don't think people like it when someone from the ruling majority decides to become a part of the oppressed minority. Maybe it's because it makes it seem like being part of that minority isn't bad at all and thus it takes the wind from our sails when we try to advocate our situation. After all, if men want to be women, or whites want to be blacks, then it must be as good or better than being part of the majority. I sure hope that made sense. Like I said, it's a very complicated issue and historical oppression plays into heavily.

theolypse said @ 8:37am GMT on 14th Jan It is. And it's especially hard to not let members represent whole groups. Not that I'm arguing against you, here, but it's something worth bringing up in parallel so I can point out that trans folks can say some pretty dumb shit about trans politics and sociology, too. Your friends aren't the whole population; I don't know what the average sensibility is.

mechanical contrivance said @ 4:51am GMT on 13th Jan You apparently come from a different culture than me. If a woman told me she wanted to get a breast reduction or become a man or whatever, I wouldn't tell her not to because it would be a waste of good breasts. If she made that decision, then that's all there is to it. On the other hand, I don't like it when women get implants because it's a waste of good breasts. But it's still her decision and my opinion about it is irrelevant. I think I just learned something about myself, but I'm not sure what.

snowfox said @ 4:41pm GMT on 13th Jan You are atypical, and that's a beautiful thing.

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:27pm GMT on 13th Jan I'm glad to hear you say that. I got pretty tired of being called weird when I was growing up.

arrowhen said @ 5:14pm GMT on 13th Jan Out of curiosity, who are these people who keep telling you how to dress? I can't even think of a time in my adult life when someone has tried to tell me what I should wear (other than workplace dress codes, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about.)

snowfox said @ 7:16pm GMT on 13th Jan Maybe Texas is just full of busybodies, or maybe it is very different for women. Oddly, while most of the people who bother me are other women, sometimes it's the men too.

arrowhen said @ 7:41pm GMT on 13th Jan I suppose it could also be that I'm an antisocial (and, from what I hear, mean-looking) bastard, so I don't get into that many conversions in the first place and when I do, I'm not exactly giving off, "I'm receptive to your stupid unsolicited fashion advice" vibes.

bruceski said @ 8:16pm GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Funny] Ironically, I would welcome unsolicited fashion advice. I'm the kind of nerd who found something that looked good twelve years ago and has stuck with it, so if I in fact look like a drunk circus clown I clearly do not know it unless someone tells me. And at that point I would either need suggestions on what I *should* be wearing or I'd need to start drinking and join the circus. But no, my family has the Madden Scowl, a trait that makes my neutral expression look like I'm extremely pissed off. It's kinda neat to look through family photos and see the same face on everyone, where the mild jowls shape the flat look into a frown of disgust. Makes us look unapproachable.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:37am GMT on 13th Jan Acceptable is subjective. Switching gender can also mean many things. And if someone needs to switch gender, then it's not a shame and a waste, it's something they want and need, so it's a good thing.

thikarai said @ 4:36am GMT on 13th Jan Not going to dispute your point, but here're some examples from the other side. RuPaul's actually been doing pretty well. Has her own TV show and so on. From what I hear, RuPaul's Drag Race is hilarious. Parinya Charoenphol might also be a fairly good candidate for being a famous trans-woman boxer, also had award winning movies made about her, and Andrej Pejic models women's clothing (including bras) in magazines, but these people are less well known. I thought John Travolta did a hilarious job in the movie, "Hairspray", flirting with Christopher Walken. "Silence of the Lambs", "The Crying Game" won academy awards, "Transamerica" won a golden globe, but I'm not sure what section of the movie store it'd be in. "The Hot Chick" has Rob Schneider as a silly Rachel McAdams (though, not the main character), and "The White Chicks" .... well, perhaps not the BEST example, but one nevertheless. :)

azazel said @ 9:47am GMT on 13th Jan Drag Race is awesome.

bruceski said @ 3:02am GMT on 13th Jan I know at least two of them. Shall I ask one to go get hate-crimed so I can link a news article?

snowfox said @ 3:33am GMT on 13th Jan I'd rather have someone to talk to seriously about the gender issues they face, their own self-conception. As a writer, I want to be more inclusive of ALL groups, but I need information to work with.

bruceski said @ 4:20am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:1 Good] Fair enough. I guess I got a bit knee-jerk about it. Internet forums have a way of doing that, sorry. No promises, but I'll poke them and see if either wants to talk.

snowfox said @ 4:29pm GMT on 13th Jan Thanks! I appreciate it.

theolypse said @ 4:31am GMT on 13th Jan And I've noticed that, in queer and LGBT spaces, transmen get massively more respect than transwomen.

eggboy said @ 4:38am GMT on 13th Jan I think perhaps that is your perception or the perception where you are. I haven't noticed that and it seems like bullshit to me (in Brisbane).

kichijoii said @ 2:50am GMT on 13th Jan [Score:3 Insightful] I feel sorry for the bigoted girl. She's been given stupid beliefs by someone somewhere as she grew up, and now she's going to either continue to be an angry, stupid, bigoted adult, or she'll learn her mistake and live with the shame for years to come. Granted, what she said cannot stand, and I'm glad people are coming down on her for it. It just sucks that people can screw up kids that way.

crom said @ 7:41pm GMT on 19th Jan [Score:-1 Troll]

crom said @ 10:46pm GMT on 19th Jan [Score:-1] If you think I'm trolling, perhaps you should click through and read about the book.

papango said @ 5:08am GMT on 20th Jan I've seen the book before. You're trolling. This is why we can't have a civil conversation.

crom said @ 11:25pm GMT on 20th Jan Please read the review of the book. It's not a joke. Real, sane, otherwise-ordinary people feel that they are members of other species trapped in human form.

papango said @ 12:10am GMT on 21st Jan [Score:1 Insightful] You raised the horse-in-human-form thing to illustrate what a slippery slope it would be if you were forced to recognised that your definitions of 'male' and 'female' are inadequate for some people. The fact that it's a real thing doesn't make what you are doing here any less douche-baggy.

crom said @ 2:04am GMT on 21st Jan You could explain why I'm wrong, but instead you call me a douche-bag. Is there any way I could have a different opinion than you about this issue and not be a douche-bag?

papango said @ 2:26am GMT on 21st Jan I don't know. My opinion is that gender identity can be complicated, and that set definitions are not adequate. You seem to want to be able to fix the categories and assign people to them based on your own determination (often against their own identity), and your reasoning for this is your own interest in certain types of genitals. There may well be a way for you to express that that isn't asshaterry, but I haven't seem it so far.

[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.