Said Cristan Williams, editor of TransAdvocate.com, quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article titled "What does being a woman mean? Caitlyn Jenner’s emergence rekindles debate./Some radical feminists say that males who transition to females can hardly embody the unique experiences, both physically and culturally, that constitute being an authentic female."
Does being a woman mean something or not? Or are we seeing a fight over a middle ground, where being a woman matters, but only in some ways, and it's a struggle over drawing the line around which ways matter.
The linked article discusses the Elinor Burkett NYT op-ed — "What Makes a Woman?" — that we discussed 2 days ago, here. Burkett called attention to the physical experiences that a person with a male body cannot possibly have:
They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts or woken up after sex terrified they’d forgotten to take their birth control pills the day before. They haven’t had to cope with the onset of their periods in the middle of a crowded subway, the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists.Menstruating and the possibility of getting pregnant are clearly limited to the female body, but not every women has an intense fear experience related to unwise or coerced sex and not every woman has terrible difficulty dealing with her period. And many men are afraid of being too weak to fend off an attack. (Even if they are less likely to picture a sexual attack, they are certainly capable of being raped.)
Anyway, my point is, within the category of those who want to get involved in shaping the meaning of Who's a real woman?, some want to include a necessary element of having a female body (perhaps only because of the experiences that occur (or can occur) because of it), and some people want to say it's a mental state — something about your brain or soul — that can come into being without having pregnancy, menstruation, and other female-body-related experiences.
Obviously, some people are going to want to shrink from that whole fight. You might want to deny that there is a female brain/soul (even if you've got a live-and-let-live attitude about those who want to talk about themselves in those terms), and you might not think those female-body-related experiences are all that big a deal in the formation of an individual woman's psyche (even if you care about relieving burdens women may experience because of their bodies).
Posts
127 comments:
Idiocy.
If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?
Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
You can't put blank paper between the advertizements.
The whole tactic is designed to cause CONFUSION about .... everything. Sexual identity is a mental concept, as is private property of the bourgeoisie.
Paralyze everyone with confusion. Then lawlessness ensues since no rules can be enforced while we are in CONFUSION.
What is private property...it's all confusion now...so everyone occupies Wall Street and lives free taking what the want. Confused people cannot stop anything. It is unstoppable redistribution by theft everywhere.
Psyche was female, in mythology.
"Now, these birth control pills I'm prescribing cost $11.00 a month but don't think you have to get your money's worth because if I find out you've turned into the town pump I'll take them away."
-- Some Physician to Peggy in an early episode of Mad Men (from memory)
I'd go with nagging.
We're fighting to humor the mentally ill. This is no better than not feeding an anorexic because they think they're fat. The cult of sensitivity is deeply damaging to people and people humoring Bruce really should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. "Transgender" activists are simply cruel to the mentally ill and should be shunned by a civilized society --- one we no longer possess.
The Progressive War on Science continues unabated and the transgender activists are no better than gay marriage advocates. Thoroughly fascist little shits.
Are you there God? It's me Elinor.
My train of thought started with the fact that Ms.Burkett's biological determinist definition of "woman" excludes girls (and the old).
That reminded me of Jacques Barzun's observation that teenagers are not clearly men or women.
Which reminded me of Judy Blume.
If being a woman doesn't mean something then how do transgendered men know they are women?
Yet this Cristan Williams person is convinced that there are people who are and are not identified adequately using the word "transgender." You simply are or are not transgender, it is a binary thing. Oh, what a superior thing it is that this word "transgender" describes, that, unlike "man" or "woman", is unique experientially, physically, and spiritually!
Transgendered people want the right to define the sexual identity of other people in whatever stereotypical way they see fit, but deny the right of others to define their sexual identity in any way they do not approve of. If they wear a dress, they believe that they are expressing themselves as women, since woman wear dresses.
"...how do transgendered men know they are women?"
Women's intuition.
Some days when I lie awake in bed at night I worry that we have become the Weimar republic or the last days of Rome and we revel in frivolous BS.
Other days I worry that we have already past Weimar and just haven't realized it yet.
If we don't know what it is to be a woman, how do we know one can be a woman trapped in a man's body?
Maybe you are a man who imagines a woman feels a certain way, and you call that being a woman when it's really you, and your own version of being a man.
What does it mean to be black, authentically? If I say I'm a black man trapped in a white body and decide to start "talking black" start listening to rap music and dye my skin dark, or have surgery to make it dark does it make me a black person? Yesterday I had my white name, but today you can call me Tyreese. It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand!
All that's happening is I'd be playing a part of what I think a black guy is. The only thing that is authentic is what you are naturally.
Enough already! Hasn't Jenner's 15 minutes of new fame up yet?
maybee wrote:
"Maybe you are a man who imagines a woman feels a certain way, and you call that being a woman when it's really you, and your own version of being a man."
so they are imagining things based on their own warped perception of reality.
and you might not think those female-body-related experiences are all that big a deal in the formation of an individual woman's psyche
I don't think they have to be that big of a deal, but I do think about things like this when a man says he is a woman in a man's body, and he wants to become a woman.
Does he mean all of it? The period and the hot flashes and the cellulite and the pap smears? I'm not complaining about those things, but they are, for the most part, what having a woman's experience is about.
Or does it just mean, I want pretty breasts and long hair and makeup and a soft voice?
Can you really say you want to be a woman if you don't get/can't get the parts of being a woman that aren't the fun parts of being a woman? Are you running from the things you don't like about being a man without having to take on any of the things you wouldn't like about being a woman?
Gender as a social construct applied to transgenderedand those who assign themselves a different gender is actually contradictory of its own logic. So, boys usually get dressed in blue and girls in pink. Boys generally do boy things and girls generally do girl things. Etc etc. feminists have been saying for the longest that, no, pink is just a social construct, thst we are socializing women to like pink
The gender as a social construct kids though are using thst same details that the feminists are saying is just social conditioning to define themselves as a different gender.
So someone who identifies himself as a woman does all the things a woman does, like wear dresses and try to look pretty. So then they embrace the social construct and use thst as the definition of women. Then say they are that other gender beciase they like or identify with those things.
Does being a woman mean something or not? Or are we seeing a fight over a middle ground, where being a woman matters, but only in some ways, and it's a struggle over drawing the line around which ways matter.
And people thought Mayweather vs. Pacquiao was boring.
Gender as a social construct applied to transgenderedand those who assign themselves a different gender is actually contradictory of its own logic. So, boys usually get dressed in blue and girls in pink. Boys generally do boy things and girls generally do girl things. Etc etc. feminists have been saying for the longest that, no, pink is just a social construct, thst we are socializing women to like pink
The gender as a social construct kids though are using thst same details that the feminists are saying is just social conditioning to define themselves as a different gender.
So someone who identifies himself as a woman does all the things a woman does, like wear dresses and try to look pretty. So then they embrace the social construct and use thst as the definition of women. Then say they are that other gender beciase they like or identify with those things.
People get too caught up in the semantics of gender instead of focusing on the pragmatics. Here's how to crack the code:
Women have a distinct essence in situations where such claims serve to transfer money and power to Prog women and generally make women feel better.
Women are no different in situations where such claims serve to transfer money and power to Prog women and generally make women feel better.
Selective essentialism is of the essence.
Trannies deserve support when they support the right situational claims.
Trannies need to be opposed when they express an inconvenient universal essentialism.
The reason why we are having this "conversation" is because Caitlyn Jenner (the new Obama) is a threat to Hillary. As Yogy Berra would say, it's 2008 dejavu all over again.
If womanhood is something you can just put on, like shorts, or inject like hormones and ink color, then Hillary couldn't be that special... maybe that's why she wears the astronaut looking outfit.
If, in the other hand, a woman is all the things listed here, which Caitlyn cannot be, then Hillary has to be the genuine article.
I love how it is mostly the (you can have it all) left having to explain themselves.
Nice going, Caitlyn.
Authenticity is the asterisk we affix to Truths.
I am Laslo.
The defining characteristics of womanhood are different for different people. Many cite the brain, others, the uterus.
An acquaintance of mine went pretty far down the transition road. He told me once, in a candid moment, he'd always had doubts, but for him the real clincher was when he realized his farts never made any sound.
Then... one day, "Thhpppttt!!" He ripped a huge, manly one and the whole thing came crashing down. He cried, but I think he was actually quite relieved.
So I'm thinking there are some questions that may never be fully answered.
I know what it feels like to be treated as a woman and I know what it feels like to be treated as male. The former aligns with authentic being and the latter was a role assigned to me by the anatomy between my legs. I chose to swap sides 32 years ago and have no regrets. I don't miss being able to pee standing up.
There has always been an insignificantly small percentage of people changing horses in midstream, so to speak. I don't understand why the Caitlyn affair is garnering media coverage and the public's attention comparable to Lindbergh's solo flight, as if it were something completely unprecedented.
I think that the reason Althouse has had so many Jenner and Hillary posts lately is that she believes that after Hillary drops out, Jenner will become the 2016 Democrat presidential candidate.
And don't tell me that Jenner is a Republican. He was also a man at one point.
Too many feminists are like too many gay rights activists: They claim they want equality when they really want to force conformity with their views. In this case, the thought is that being a women is superior to being a man. Therefore, men should be denied entry into certain professions and be ineligible to hold certain offices. With gays, its holding certain views (such as God does not approve of homosexual activity) disqualifies one from entering certain professions or holding certain offices. Both movements have more than their fair share of totalitarians.
AA said: not every women has an intense fear experience related to unwise or coerced sex and not every woman has terrible difficulty dealing with her period.
I think that you overstate this issue a little - no, I'm sure that not every (not even most) women have this "intense" fear or "terrible" difficulty, but doesn't every woman have some time where she worries some about being attacked (of course men can be attacked, too, but, as you say, it does not seem like they usually consider the possibility in the same way), and some times (particularly when young) where she worries that a period will come suddenly and embarrass her? No, these aren't life-defining moments, but I do not think that they are insignificant to a woman's experience, either.
I agree with MayBee - it seems more about wanting to be pretty than having any understanding of the full experience of being a woman. A trans writer in Slate yesterday wrote something to the nature of "I have a woman's body, because I am a woman, and this is my body." Maybe it's the pregnancy hormones talking, but I personally found this very insulting - how dare this person insult my experience, and those of other women, by trying to claim it for their own?
So funny to see feminists reverse all their arguments when it comes to transgender.
damikesc said...
"We're fighting to humor the mentally ill. This is no better than not feeding an anorexic because they think they're fat."
I would like the pro trans crowd to explain why a male believing he is female is NOT a form of body dysmorphia. A thin person believing they are fat = mental disorder. A fat person believing they are thin = mental disorder. A human believing they are a dog = mental disorder.
When physical reality doesn't match your perceived mental image of facts, then you are messed up in the head. Yes/No?
Too many feminists are like too many gay rights activists: They claim they want equality when they really want to force conformity with their views.
Well, according to a lot of research done by Robert Stacy McCain (http://theothermccain.com/), this may be because a lot of academic feminism, both now and historically, is driven and womanned by Lesbians. Women's/gender studies departments are filled with such. Which may be why those departments are so hostile to (straight) males. And why they should, themselves, be violative of Title IX, instead of using that law against the "patriarchy", and why the new campus sexual assault standards fail so miserably reflecting the reality behind normal male/female sexual dynamics. So much of where feminism, and esp academic feminism, has gone becomes very understandable if viewed through the reality that much of it is driven by lesbians.
hoyden- would you say it was mostly for you about how other people treated you?
Do you wish you had periods? Do you wish you had mood swings? Do you wish you have years of hot flashes? Do you wish you got cellulite?
Why do you define it as the anatomy between your legs?
These people "know" they're women because they want to wear nail polish until it chips off. Or they want to wear dresses. Or they like to gossip. Or they like to drink "girly" drinks. Or they hold their cigarettes in a feminine way. It's all to do with the common stereotypes of what women are like in our society. Nobody can know what it's like to be something they're not, and if you can't know that much, then you can't know you are that something. You really just have an obsession with an idea combined with a constant sense of anxiety. Let Caitlyn and every other transperson deal with their unfortunate circumstances however they choose, and if that was the extent of the argument then it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, the trans movement is more about compulsion...imagine a small organization of people prone to depression demanding an end to psychiatric care for the depressed. The suicide rate among depressives would go up, no matter how nicely society treated them. That's what will happen to transpeople too, because you can't solve internal problems by changing external details.
I'm happy for transgendered people to be who they want to be, by the way.
I just want to make sure we aren't being so understanding that we are ignoring a better, more helpful path.
If there were no differences between male and female - there would be no transgendered people, there would be nothing to transition from and to.
Seems to be all about power.In Native American Plains Culture those we now call trans were the Confused.They were considered Gods touched.And insane but not to be shunned or put down.
If you can be born a man that later becomes a woman, can you be born a transgendered that later becomes a gendered?
The possibly that part of this maybe being driven by lesbian/feminists brings up another aspect of who or what women are. The being pretty, putting on nail polish, and gossiping are also a part (except you also see this sometimes with gay males). Partly it is also sexualty. And how so many women can do so many stupid things to get and keep men. Which may mean that the essence of being a woman is between or combines the attributes and experiences of both lesbians and M/F transvestites.
Knowing that you have the capacity to bear life with your own body, even if for some reason you decide you never want to, has to have a psycho-social effect of some kind that a person without a womb will never experience.
Even if its just a butterfly gently flapping its wings, that can lead to a great big difference down the road.
Its pretty much the only reason we SHOULD treat females any different then males.
Maybe you are a man who imagines a woman feels a certain way, and you call that being a woman when it's really you, and your own version of being a man.
This.
I'm sick of these narratives about how a person knew he was a woman because he wanted long hair, painted nails, and pretty dresses. Cosmetics and clothes are not the essence of being a woman. Many women want nothing to do with long hair, painted nails, and pretty dresses. Are they not real women anymore under this new, stereotyped version of gender?
The media version of this issue seems to be focused entirely on the fashion magazine version of being a woman.
"some people are going to want to shrink from that whole fight."
BUT once you present the concept of "presenting as a woman" (as opposed to "is a woman") then there must be the implication that some of those who "present as a woman" are not, in fact, women.
Which creates a need to decide who is, in fact, a woman. For without that distinction the category "presenting as a woman" is meaningless, as it becomes indistinguishable from "is a woman."
(And if I progress from saying "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ Scuttling across the floors of silent seas" to "I am a pair of ragged claws ..."? And, if I do so progress, why would I expect anyone anyone other than me to accept this assessment of my identity?)
(O solipsism, where is thy sting?)
Again, if an anorexic says they're fat, do these transgender activists insure that they don't eat anything?
Anyway, my point is, within the category of those who want to get involved in shaping the meaning of Who's a real woman?
If being a woman means nothing --- then WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF FEMINISM?
I'm happy for transgendered people to be who they want to be, by the way.
I'm not. Mental illness is tragic. Pretending an illness is just an identity is the height of cruelty.
Well, according to a lot of research done by Robert Stacy McCain (http://theothermccain.com/), this may be because a lot of academic feminism, both now and historically, is driven and womanned by Lesbians. Women's/gender studies departments are filled with such. Which may be why those departments are so hostile to (straight) males. And why they should, themselves, be violative of Title IX, instead of using that law against the "patriarchy", and why the new campus sexual assault standards fail so miserably reflecting the reality behind normal male/female sexual dynamics. So much of where feminism, and esp academic feminism, has gone becomes very understandable if viewed through the reality that much of it is driven by lesbians.
Which seems obvious and, honestly, conservatives should use lawfare against these programs as much as they possibly can. Either universities will cut out the cancer or they will die out. Neither is a bad result.
Are they not real women anymore under this new, stereotyped version of gender?
Apparently, "tomboys" were REALLY boys all of the time. Who knew?
I remember a girl on my baseball team as a kid who was an excellent player. She then grew up and became a stunning girl.
...shame she doesn't know that she's really a boy based on her liking boy things as a youngster...
Obviously, some people are going to want to shrink from that whole fight.
I won't. This is my line. I'm not going to sit back and play pretend with sick people indefinitely. That some countries allow people to change their gender on their birth certificates is insanity.
Science is pretty damned accurate about who is male and female. If you want to claim to be "for science", then you should laugh at this nonsense.
Freeman Hunt said...
The media version of this issue seems to be focused entirely on the fashion magazine version of being a woman.
6/9/15, 11:05 AM
Because a) that is all they can fit into the 5 minutes of air time they can set aside for this story, and b) they too don't understand this issue to anything other than a surface depth and don't see the contradictions pointed out in this very thread:
b1) all the "correct" women tell us being a women is NOT pretty dresses, make-up, and gossip.
b2) Jenner KNOWS he(sic) is a woman trapped in a man's body because he was always drawn to pretty dresses, make-up, and gossip (or whatever - who cares).
b2i) but Jenner still likes chicks
b2ii) Jenner plans to keep the "man junk"
b2iii) Jenner plans to use the "man junk" to bang women he(sic) is attracted to.
As pointed out up-thread, how silly is it for someone to say "I feel like an eagle, have always felt like an eagle trapped in this human body". There is NO way a human can understand what and how an eagle feels but everyday men say they feel like women trapped in men's bodies and women say they feel like men trapped in women's bodies. How do you know? How can any man "know" what a woman really feels like and how can any woman know what a man really feels like?
If changing your appearance makes you feel better, fine, what do I care but don't delude yourself that you are something you are not even if you manage to make yourself LOOK like something else.
Also, if you still have "man junk", you better not let me catch you coming out of the women's restroom, I don't care how you "feel". That is no place for someone that does not need to sit down to pee. I understand that going into the men's room could shatter your carefully crafted illusion but "too bad, so sad". That is life.
Also, if you still have "man junk", you better not let me catch you coming out of the women's restroom, I don't care how you "feel". That is no place for someone that does not need to sit down to pee. I understand that going into the men's room could shatter your carefully crafted illusion but "too bad, so sad". That is life.
Some father is going to kick the crap out of some lunatic who "feels he's a woman" who enters the bathroom when his daughter is in there.
I will applaud that father.
Once upon a time, I, Eric the Fruit Bat, dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was Eric the Fruit Bat. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a fruit bat dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a fruit bat. Between a fruit bat and a butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is called the transformation of material things.
I am the new Pope. Bow down bitches. Do not dare trigger me with your micro-aggressions.
I self-identify as a ghost. When you see me entering people's homes, I am not committing a crime. Ghosts cannot commit crimes.
"Who's a real woman?"
The whole "two X chromosomes" thing works for me 99.9999999% of the time.
I also self-identify as Barack Obama. I want to confess that I really don't know what I'm doing.
Seems to me like one of the things that defines a woman is not having been born with a penis.
But that is just me. Your mileage may vary.
John Henry
Why are progressives fighting to define women by what gay men think?
damikesc: This is my line. I'm not going to sit back and play pretend with sick people indefinitely
Yup. I think you'll find that AceofSpades outlines your position perfectly:
"I don't care about Jenner that much, and have avoided writing about him, but I do care about my own mind, and the freedom to think not only things that are wrong, but increasingly, things which are obviously, demonstrably true (i.e., Jenner was a man who had sex-reassignment surgery and now is a "transwoman")?
That he is a man who underwent sex-reassignment surgery is not a "belief." It is not my "opinion." It is not a wrong-headed idea of which I ought to disabuse myself.
It is in fact an objective fact. One that is, apparently, now joining the ranks of the thousand other True things that we are no longer permitted to say.
There is a word for people who despise the truth: We typically call them liars.
Our society is choking ever-more on lies we're demanded to tell, and forbiddances of truth Too Accurate For Polite Company.
Again, if this is about politeness -- like if I had Jenner on the podcast, and he wanted to be called "she" -- I would go along with it. I'm not an impolite person, on a personal level.
But Jenner is not addressing the nation on an individual level (that is, greeting each of us), the situation where we usually agree to polite fictions, such as pretending that you don't know your uncle is having an affair or that your grandmother keeps farting and then blaming it on the the dog.
He is addressing the nation as an avatar for a political/social idea, to wit, that a transwoman is actually a woman, and that, furthermore, in his estimation, he is "the new normal," and we should just agree to the normality of all this, and also gladly agree to expand the choking number of Polite Fictions our cultural-marxist-mediated society demands by just a couple more. (That is, until the next pressure group comes demanding something.)
And on that level I must reject his request. To ask someone to indulge a polite fiction in a personal context is one thing; but to ask -- or, as many other transextremists do, demand -- that one agree to a lie that someone else finds pleasing is quite another.
It is obvious that "Caitlyn Jenner" is not a woman in the way "woman" is commonly meant. Whatever he is, he is free to follow his own bliss, but I must insist that my mind be left unmolested in all this exciting Social Justice Campaigning."
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357109.php#357109
The normal state promotes evolutionary fitness through natural reproduction. It tolerates other orientations and behaviors that are not rejected for principled or necessary causes, including when trans orientations and behaviors represent a progressive condition in society and humanity.
Fen, basically, that's my take. I've been willing to go along to get along --- but this is too mind-numbingly stupid to let slide.
At a certain point, somebody has to say "No".
I'd love to believe Western civilization is worth saving, but this is what our civilization has devolved to, then the death of Western Civ is not the worst thing that can happen.
MayBee, we live in a culture that partitions people based on the anatomy between our legs. Further the culture defines behaviour based on that anatomy. I never felt comfortable in the male role; it was a straitjacket. When women challenged their assigned domain and won the right to "wear the pants" then I came to understand where I fit. I inhabit the bell curve with tomboys. There is no comparable existence in the male role.
Can you imagine your life in a culture where gender was simply a characteristic like eye color?
The Proposal, interviews in separate rooms
Margaret (Sandra Bullock): I have never farted in front of him. Nor will I ever fart in front of him.
Andrew (Ryan Reynolds): She farts in her sleep.
When women challenged their assigned domain and won the right to "wear the pants" then I came to understand where I fit. I inhabit the bell curve with tomboys. There is no comparable existence in the male role.
I'm sorry, I have a really hard time understanding what you are saying here.
I know a lot of effeminate men who live as effeminate men.
Thorley Winston said...
If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?
Some have only two or three legs.
Our woman-dog humps our man-dog and I think he likes it, but I don't want to stereotype them with labels like woman-dog and man-dog because neither of them wears makeup unless mud qualifies.
Derrida thinks the authentic women's role is making places.
Choreographies
Read the first few pages.
hoyden- why didn't you decide to do what you said women did, and lead the fight to live as an feminine male? Others have done it?
Am I understanding you chose to live as a woman and have your penis removed because you wanted to be more of a tomboy than a feminine male, because you didn't think society allows a role for a feminine male?
What about all the other parts of being a woman that we are talking about here- periods, cellulite, hot flashes, pms. Do you wish you experienced that?
As a guy, I think that Henner is a bit crazy, except that he/she had been married into the Kardashians, and he may have either seen the excitement, or the money, as being attractive. Maybe making things worse - his daughter is apparently going Kardashians this year, or something like that.
I am willing to give women their safe spaces, and for the most part let the trannies and lesbians fight it out. There are a lot of reasons to prefer being a guy, but at my age, it is probably more that being a woman seens so exhausting. Women seem incapable of doing a lot of things efficiency. For example, our bed has the usual comforter and real pillows. But in addition, after pulling up the former, making it tight and even, we need to put on maybe 8 fufu pillows. And you can't just toss them on the bed, instead they have to be precisely placed and arranged. Same thing in the living room with the decorative blankets and pillows on the sofas and chairs. I personally cannot comprehend soendind an hour or so a day putting on makeup, dressing, etc. And then you have to consider the emotional side of interpersonal relationships. I don't have the time or energy to soend an hour dissecting everything that happened in a 15 minute conversation. I could go on, but hopefully you can see already why I think being a woman would be so exhausting.
As a guy, I think that Jenner is a bit crazy
MayBee, we live in a culture that partitions people based on the anatomy between our legs. Further the culture defines behaviour based on that anatomy.
Or they base it on centuries of observation of how kids and people behave.
I never felt comfortable in the male role; it was a straitjacket.
So because you don't like stereotypes, you now want to live as YOUR stereotype of what a woman is?
That isn't courage or freedom...it is mental illness.
When women challenged their assigned domain and won the right to "wear the pants" then I came to understand where I fit.
What "assigned domain" did they have to win the fight to get out of?
Do you realize how incredibly superficial your entire thought process is? I'd be embarrassed to have a thought process so devoid of depth as this.
Can you imagine your life in a culture where gender was simply a characteristic like eye color?
Yes, let's change society to please a few mentally ill people. I bet nothing can go wrong with that.
You disliked one stereotype so you pursued another stereotype.
That is truly sad.
Body dysmorphia is a sad thing. Anybody who actually lets somebody act on their mental illness is a criminal.
Maybe, and this may be unfair, but I have no problem with both tyrannies and lesbos sharing women's safe places, because that means more room i ours for us. If Jenner wants to wear a dress, makeup, etc, then more power to him, and if that means he uses the women's restroom, that is fine with me.
If Jenner wants to wear a dress, makeup, etc, then more power to him, and if that means he uses the women's restroom, that is fine with me.
That'd be a huge problem for me.
For example, would Bruce have tolerated a guy going in the bathroom with HIS young daughters just because he "felt" like a woman?
He's protective of them around the paparazzi as is, so odds are, no --- he wouldn't much care for that.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone asked Tom Jones to weigh in on whether Bruce Jenner is a lady?
Why would I want to try to change the male role when I was the only one who was wasn't happy? I saw the way everyone treated males who exhibited expression outside the male role. As a child I decided I would never let that happen to me. I tried and failed to find fulfillment in the male role. I also knew I would not have this problem as a woman. I had to work through other issues but SRS fixed the anatomy issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0oXY4nDxE
Bruce Hayden
Further proof. Every working woman I have ever met would be seriously happy to spend four hours recounting her eight hour work day. Conversation by conversation, triumph by triumph, sleight by sleight.
No man wants to relive a second of his work day.
Hoyden
Stop. Just stop.
I don't care if old men dress up as old ladies. My concern is that now, when I pick up a hot chick in a bar, in the back of my mind I'll be wondering.... And worse, I'll be wondering, "If it comes down to it, might I even be OK with it?" Scary thoughts in scary times.
Why would I want to try to change the male role when I was the only one who was wasn't happy?
Again, you chose to "overcome" one stereotype by embracing another one. Good job.
I saw the way everyone treated males who exhibited expression outside the male role.
And how is that? How does "everyone" treat males who exhibit expression outside the "male role"
What EXACTLY is "the male role"?
As a child I decided I would never let that happen to me.
So you made up your mind AS A CHILD and never changed? Really?
Sounds hella rational.
I tried and failed to find fulfillment in the male role.
Which consists of...?
I would like SPECIFIC examples of what "the male role" consists of --- largely so we men here can be amazed at how we don't abide by that role all the way either.
I also knew I would not have this problem as a woman. I had to work through other issues but SRS fixed the anatomy issue.
Too bad the ACTUAL issue wasn't touched.
Again, you're no more a woman than an anorexic is fat.
Why would I want to try to change the male role when I was the only one who was wasn't happy?
I would say with all the push for Transgender awareness, acceptance, and rights, you weren't the only one who wasn't happy.
What I understand you to be saying, Hoyden, is that you didn't want to be a woman- with the periods, the hot flashes, the pregnancy issues, the pms. You wanted the role of a woman. And you felt it was easier to do that in society as a woman than as an effeminate man.
Does anything mean anything?
Are there any essences of any sort to match any labels, ever?
Guess not, as soon as any of them are inconvenient?
(I mean, I don't want to suggest that the labels we happen to have perfectly match essences and any questioning of either is Obviously Wrong; they don't, and it isn't.
But while gender roles are subject to socialization, the existence of biology and its effects are not socially constructed, and no amount of wishing they were can change that. We have the biology we have, in much the way that we have the physical existence we have - radically and with no choice in the matter, we're thrown into it.
All I want is for people to not pretend otherwise; this is perfectly compatible with both sexual equality under the law and in personal relations, and changing any of the socialized bits as one sees fit and can convince others to go along with it.)
On the comments above, don't talk to me about "the male role" or "the female role".
There is barely a "majority belief male role", let alone one singular one period. The more you pretend there is in your reactions, the more strength the very idea has.
Rejecting the idea of "the" male or female role is a far better - and more accurate - bet than railing against how "the" roles oppress you.
Back when Althouse was being a hippie art major certain buzz words were almost always on the lips of the cognoscenti. One was "relevance" or its verb, "relate," as in I'm gonna drop that course; What's the relevance of Medieval religious art to Watergate? or I can relate to "The Whole Earth Catalog." It's so relevant. Another ubiquitous word was "authenticity." Back in the day "authentic" was muy bueno, and every bit as desirable as "relevant." To be both authentic and relevant was the be all and end all of coolness. You'd have to be John Fucking Lennon himself to be cooler than authentic and relevant.
Now the same people are trying to sell us on the notion that "authentic" is a meaningless word.
On the comments above, don't talk to me about "the male role" or "the female role".
I want to hear how he defines it. I'm genuinely curious how something so nebulous can lead to somebody to slicing his penis off for...reasons.
...and I know in some areas a psychiatrist has to sign off on SRS, so if that happened, I would love to know if that doctor is still in practice.
...because he REALLY shouldn't be.
MayBee, I believe, has the answer to the burning question of "What is authentically a woman?" If the person does not have periods, hot flashes, pregnancy issues and PMS there is absolutely no authenticity. Zero. You can wear a dress, cut off your dick, put on makeup, fall to pieces for nothing, read Vogue, get your nails done: but no authenticity. Zero authenticity.
And worse, I'll be wondering, "If it comes down to it, might I even be OK with it?" Scary thoughts in scary times.
This brings to mind an interesting thought exercise, one I'm sure has been played out over and over ad nauseum within the trans communities. If a guy, goes out to a nightclub or bar, meets a charming woman, hooks up...and she turns out to be a biological, nay, non-RSR'd trans...am that guy allowed to be furious?
Think about it for a second. You don't just "hook up". There's the meet-cute, a flirtation portion of the evening, the first kiss, etc, all building up to finally and intimately finding out each other's plumbing.
So...you have no reason to think this wonderful, funny, pretty woman is biologically a dude, with dude parts all a-waggin down there. It's not even on your mind. But then you get where and find out...
Does the transwhatever have a duty to inform you of this fact at the outset? If not, isn't that tantamount to one of the worst lies you can perpetrate on someone? If not, isn't it one of the most selfish things you can do to someone else?
If a mantranswoman successfully womans it up enough to trick a hetero male into bed, isn't that treachery?
Quaestor:
Plus, look out for "holistic". Another of those words which mean "run for cover."
Menstruating and the possibility of getting pregnant are clearly limited to the female body
My god, do you know how patronizing and cisgendernormative that is? What about all those people who have fully functioning uteruses and ovaries, but identify as male? How dare you deny them agency over their own identity? I am quite sure that at least one of the letters in LGBTQ+ applies to them, and that letter does not stand for "female." I mean, everybody agrees that it is an act of micro-, if not macro-, aggression to refer to Caitlyn Jenner as "he," simply because she has a certain type of genitalia. And yet you blithely deny the life experiences of every male with a uterus, telling him that he is "clearly" a female. Who is the UW Vice-President of Gender Inclusiveness and Climate Change? Someone needs to report you.
Stop! Just stop! People who have gender re-assignment surgery are not, and will never be that which the surgery purports. If you were born with a dick, you are a male. If you were born with cunt you are a female. If you were born with both you are a sport. I'm sorry, life sucks sometimes. If you cloned Bruce Jenner you know what you would get? A male. And you would always get a male. Transgender surgery is a scam, invented by plastic surgeons, to separate poor crazy people from their money. Or when its government financed, tax payers who have too many pandering politicians.
"This is no better than not feeding an anorexic because they think they're fat. The cult of sensitivity is deeply damaging to people and people humoring Bruce really should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. "Transgender" activists are simply cruel to the mentally ill and should be shunned by a civilized society --- one we no longer possess."
I've seen this analogy a lot and I don't think it's a close enough match to make the point for which it is offered. The anorexic has a belief that we can see from her body is mistaken. She isn't fat. The person who claims to have a brain that's different from the body it's inside is notably not denying the sex of the body. The person and the rest of us agree about the body. So it would be more like a thin person saying, I know I'm thin, but inside, I'm still a fat person. That would be a description of feeling that the speaker might insist that we understand literally, but that we could also see as more of a metaphor, like saying "I'm really a child at heart." What's the big problem there? Live and let live.
Now, we should object if the anorexic sees this feeling of being a fat person inside as a problem to be addressed by losing more weight, because that is destructive of the body and often fatal. If this anorexic couldn't understand that reality and insisted on acting destructively, we are right to refuse to go along with this mistaken and dangerous belief.
Can that be compared to a transgendered person who thinks that feeling like the other gender should be addressed by doing things to the body? There are at least 2 big problems with that:
1. To see yourself as fat is to see yourself as having a bad condition that you want to fix, to get to thin (which you already are). The anorexic isn't in love with that fat identity and trying to reach it, but hates that identity and wants to get rid of it. The transgendered person is lucid on the question of what the outward body is, but wants to reach an outward manifestation that matches the inward. Completely different.
2. The things the transgendered person proposes to do to his/her body are not fatal or even too dangerous, and the person doesn't lack information or the capacity to give informed consent to these treatments (not unless we know something more about the particular individual). I can see wanting to be vigilant about what claims are made about the various surgeries and hormone treatments so that patients aren't told things that aren't true. But it's not like the anorexic continuing to diet, because the treatments do something to achieve a desired goal about which a patient can be informed and can consent. You may think these treatments are terrible, but it's possible for the transgendered person to completely understand them and choose them. People choose to do all sorts of things with their bodies, and we should have sound ideas about when we as a group should tell them no or try to rescue them.
A male who wants long hair, pretty dresses, makeup, a soft voice, and manicures: why isn't that person simply called a cross-dresser or some term without all the negative baggage that means the same thing? Why call this person a woman? If I love to wear a certain costume and want to wear it all the time, society might be happy to accommodate me, use the name of my preference, and treat me kindly and with respect. But I don't see why society would be obligated to say that I was truly and actually whatever the costume depicted.
hoyden: MayBee, we live in a culture that partitions people based on the anatomy between our legs.
No, we don't. There is no culture that does any such thing. All human cultures partition people into "male" and "female" based on a host of hugely important factors that happen to go along with that "anatomy between our legs". And no, that outliers have always existed, and that most cultures note and deal with outliers in one way or another, doesn't change that fundamental fact about human societies.
Society is partitioned into male and female because it makes sense to do so and makes no sense at all not to do so.
You make it sound as if "male" and "female" is some entirely arbitrary distinction in an objectively "genderfluid" species, which "society" just pulled out of its arse because it got bored one day, and that our genitalia have some relation to our "real" selves only by random chance. And, sigh, now we're stuck with this totally unworkable and unnatural system and golly we just have to "fix" it.
Further the culture defines behaviour based on that anatomy. I never felt comfortable in the male role; it was a straitjacket. When women challenged their assigned domain and won the right to "wear the pants" then I came to understand where I fit. I inhabit the bell curve with tomboys. There is no comparable existence in the male role.
Look hoyden, I don't know you. I don't know why you "transitioned". But whether you have some kind of mental pathology (as some trannies most certainly do), or you're an individual who came to terms successfully with a genuinely ambiguous physiology/developmental history, the fact is that you are an extreme outlier.
Now, I want to live in a tolerant society where the outliers and eccentrics can go about unmolested. Nothing inherent in being a (non-criminal, non-insane) outlier that prevents one from being a contributing, decent member of society. I'm a bit of an odd bird myself. What I don't want is for extreme outliers to demand that society engage in the vast destructive lie that extreme outliers are normal, and that our way of life and institutions be dismantled and reconstructed to suit that egregious myth. It doesn't work. Human societies cannot be constructed that way. (See, e.g., "integrating" women into combat units. Or the batshit crazy goal of "gender parity" in high office/among high achievers.)
Can you imagine your life in a culture where gender was simply a characteristic like eye color?
Oh yes, easily. See "dystopia"; "nightmare"; "inhuman".
The Y chromosome matters. You need xx to get lady parts.
Postmodernism causes confusion, doesn't it? For the logical person, the science matters. When politics dictate science, you end up with Lysenkoism.
Carnifex wrote: Transgender surgery is a scam, invented by plastic surgeons, to separate poor crazy people from their money. Or when its government financed, tax payers who have too many pandering politicians.
Bingo! Give that man... er, gender self-authenticated... uh... thing, a cigar!
Much of this current useless imbroglio dates from day the medical profession defenestrated Hippocrates and his oath. Without the Oath to deter them, the practitioners of plastic surgery, a hitherto honorable profession dedicated to the mitigation of suffering caused by the inevitable mutilations of war, have allowed the field to become a haven of quacks and mountebanks who will do literally anything to you if you have the ready cash. I think it really came to a head when Michael Jackson began to mutate from a nice-looking young man into a hideous caricature of a woman, a real-life Cruella De Ville. Jackson didn't get that way on his own. A surgeon, a medical doctor, a member of a profession that supposed to be guided by the primal ethic Do No Harm, took Jackson's money and destroyed his face with a knife, instead of getting Michael Jackson the psychiatric help he needed for his body dysmorphic disorder.
I haven't yet found the name of that neo-Mengele, but he might as well not hide. His kind of quackery is commonplace now. Make me look like a human/cat hybrid! Sure. Got $75,000? Good, lie down. Doctor, I'm a woman trapped in man's body! Chop my dick off! Anything you say, my friend, but it's cash up front, ok?... The disgusting decadence of a noble calling.
What's the big problem there? Live and let live.
We've tried! That's not good enough for you and your freaks. Now you are demanding endorsement and support.
we should have sound ideas about when we as a group should tell them no or try to rescue them.
"Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder."
"He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people."
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
We're fighting to humor the mentally ill. This is no better than not feeding an anorexic because they think they're fat.
Absolutely perfect analogy. I am stealing...
I've seen this analogy a lot and I don't think it's a close enough match to make the point for which it is offered.
In this situation, both are cases of body dysmorphia. They think they see something that is not there. Anorexia is mentioned because it is the most easily recognizable (both in terms of info and obvious physical appearance of sufferers) of the disease.
Now, we should object if the anorexic sees this feeling of being a fat person inside as a problem to be addressed by losing more weight, because that is destructive of the body and often fatal. If this anorexic couldn't understand that reality and insisted on acting destructively, we are right to refuse to go along with this mistaken and dangerous belief.
Can that be compared to a transgendered person who thinks that feeling like the other gender should be addressed by doing things to the body? There are at least 2 big problems with that:
I firmly believe that the answer is "yes". Anybody essentially maiming themselves due to a psychological condition (and SRS is not a pleasant surgery) needs to be stopped for their own protection. Studies also show that post-op transgenders tend to have rather horrifying suicide rates because the actual problem is not dealt with but, instead, treated as if it is true.
Those who are advocating it are doing a criminal disservice to these people. This isn't tolerance or acceptance any more so than pretending that the voices a schizophrenic hears in their head are really there.
The things the transgendered person proposes to do to his/her body are not fatal or even too dangerous, and the person doesn't lack information or the capacity to give informed consent to these treatments (not unless we know something more about the particular individual).
I believe you posted on the "transabled" a few days ago. The exact same can be said about them. Did it seem healthy to you? Would you support a surgeon removing an arm because the patient said he felt like he shouldn't have it? Even if they know all the risks in detail --- would you be OK with a surgeon doing it?
I'd imagine no. I'd imagine you'd likely request the removal of a license for any surgeon who would do it. I see no reason this is different. Transgenders aren't "born in the wrong body". Bruce (who won't do ANYTHING except dress up and wear make up to be called a "woman", something that truly should offend feminists, but doesn't seem to) is not a woman. He's a man who is now wearing a dress.
But it's not like the anorexic continuing to diet, because the treatments do something to achieve a desired goal about which a patient can be informed and can consent. You may think these treatments are terrible, but it's possible for the transgendered person to completely understand them and choose them. People choose to do all sorts of things with their bodies, and we should have sound ideas about when we as a group should tell them no or try to rescue them.
Agreed. But doctors who do treatments to people who give consent but are not of sound mind or body aren't forgiven for doing so. And these people just aren't of sound mind or body. They are obsessed with stereotypes of "This is what men do" and "This is what women do" and their thought process rarely gets much deeper than that. And if a man slices his penis off, it doesn't make him a woman.
Earlier in this thread, somebody said that society is obsessed with what is between our legs and how one should act --- but seemed to focus solely on stereotypes of how people should act with a penis or vagina. There is something deeply wrong and somebody needs to protect these people from themselves.
Bruce thinks he's a woman because he likes dresses and make up. THAT is his reason.
MayBee said, "What I understand you to be saying, Hoyden, is that you didn't want to be a woman- with the periods, the hot flashes, the pregnancy issues, the pms. You wanted the role of a woman. And you felt it was easier to do that in society as a woman than as an effeminate man."
Incorrect. The period, hot flashes and pregnancy are irrelevant, just as they are in any woman who has had radical surgery, often due to cancer. I knew those aspects would never be part of my life.
What do you mean by effeminate man? Is that someone who still has male identification? Since I have never had identification as male, other than that assigned by society, which the surgery erased, I don't relate the that category.
My life is infinitely better now that the link to the male collective has been severed.
A bit of unfinished business for Hoyden which just occurred to me.
I'm sorry, I apologize.
A couple weeks back in another comment thread about transexuals, I criticized you for being unwilling to share with a prospective employer that you have an education, financial, work history and a criminal (non?) history under your previous, male, name.
I had understood you to say that this was medical history to which an employer has no right and criticized that idea.
You clarified that that I was misunderstanding you and that you do share that info with potential or actual employers.
then the comment thread scrolled off and I never got a chance to apologize for my misunderstanding.
So here it is: I am sorry, mea culpa, I apologize.
John Henry
Sharing a bathroom with Hoyden, who does not have a dick would be very different from sharing a bathroom with Bruce Jenner who does.
Jenner still has the equipment to be a rapist. Hoyden may have the equipment to be an axe murderer but not to be a rapist.
Not meaning to criticize you specifically here, Hoyden. It is a reference to the old joke that if all men are potential rapists then all women are potential axe murderers.
John Henry
Awfully convenient for Trans-Jenner since his age allows him to skip authentic womanly experiences like menstruating and menopause.
His mom apparently will continue to call him Bruce while referring to T-J as "she". But..she thinks "she's" beautiful. Which is important. Because pop culture might find this all less palatable if "she" was drop dead hideous....
Anglelyne, I have no quarrel with society divided by sex and activities/behavior segregated accordingly. Most of what you wrote is your own interpretation of my words to fit your preconceived idea of what I believe about culture. What you wrote is mostly wrong or an extreme distortion.
"the fact is that you are an extreme outlier."
Bingo. We agree. 100%.
Regarding a few other assertions...
I have made no demands that society change on my behalf. In all situations I complied with the established protocols for transition.
Applying the label "mental illness" is one way to dismiss another person's experience that quite a few folks here employ. Sometimes it's applicable.
Incorrect. The period, hot flashes and pregnancy are irrelevant, just as they are in any woman who has had radical surgery, often due to cancer. I knew those aspects would never be part of my life.
Yes, women who had radical surgery is darned near a majority of women. Why, I bet only a small minority of women have ever experienced a period.
Men who feel they are born in a woman's body are exceptionally more irrelevant given how miniscule a percentage of men have that particular affliction.
Hint: Telling women what being a woman is like is silly when you're not one.
What do you mean by effeminate man? Is that someone who still has male identification? Since I have never had identification as male, other than that assigned by society, which the surgery erased, I don't relate the that category.
So you WERE a man but now think you're a woman for various comically superficial reasons.
Hate to break it to you, since it required surgery to "erase", you very much had a male identification. I bet it is on your birth certificate.
My life is infinitely better now that the link to the male collective has been severed.
So you're not a man but CLEARLY aren't a woman. Good for you.
"You're still not a woman, though.
The underlying chromosomes are still there, man.
Don't deny it.
It's science."
I never said I was a woman. I have identification that denotes female. I said that I know what it feels like to be treated as a woman.
Mary pointed out:
He had lots of kids too, as a "man".
That had occurred to me the other day. What happens to the kids? Do they no longer have a "father"? Do they now have 2 mommies? Or perhaps, until he gets his dick cut off, 1.5 mommies?
In Ireland a week or two back, a transsexual was able to get his/her birth certificate gender changed to reflect that he had been born a woman (or vice-versa, I forget now).
We are not to that point yet but what happens to kids when it does? How did they get here, virgin birth?
I can imagine it would be very disconcerting to the kids.
John Henry
John Henry, " I apologize."
Accepted.
This whole transgender thing -- I have to say I was ambivalent about it. Until I read above about a fruit bat dreaming he (she? it?) being a butterfly. That is a compelling image. Transformative, even. As transformative as Obama promising me I could keep my physician. Does that physician cut off seed depositing organs, BTW?
I am no longer ambivalent. But neither am I convinced. I guess you could say I'm ambivalent about my former ambivalence. But it really doesn't matter what YOU say, any more than it matters what gender you assign to me. My ambivalence is between me and my plastic surgeon. Or gender reassignment technician. OTOH, what if he (she?) never went to medical school? What if he (she?) thinks he's a surgeon in a longshoreman's body? More importantly, what if he (she?) is really a pickle slicer in a plastic surgeon's body?
"I think some of the "sympathizers" in the thread are mistaken as to what people like you call themselves.
You might do a better job of educating your own community than some of the "experts" opining here..."
We are not a monolithic bunch anymore than John Kerry or Bowie Bergdahl stand in for the military. When I transitioned in the early 80's we were hated and reviled by the Gay/Lesbian community. We didn't even show up on hetero radar except as rare and harmless anomalies.
Now look at the fine mess we are in.
I never said I was a woman. I have identification that denotes female. I said that I know what it feels like to be treated as a woman.
The identification is incorrect. Sorry.
That had occurred to me the other day. What happens to the kids? Do they no longer have a "father"? Do they now have 2 mommies? Or perhaps, until he gets his dick cut off, 1.5 mommies?
What about things like inheritance? They can't be "next of kin" since a woman cannot father a child. This is the height of selfishness.
And if the kids are underage, good luck with child support.
damiksec, you can masquerade your opinion as fact all you want. It must make you feel good and morally superior. Knock yourself out.
Your misconceptions are quite profound. There's nothing I can say or share that can penetrate your puerile parrot-thick understanding.
I take no joy in writing the above.
Painfully obvious, I know, but the intoxication has kicked in, and it's time for dinner, so I now find that my ordinarily low standard is even lower than usual. LINK.
damiksec, you can masquerade your opinion as fact all you want
My "opinion" is backed up by science, so thanks for your permission.
Your masquerade, however, is based on your feelings and little more.
Note the difference.
It must make you feel good and morally superior.
No moreso than noticing that the sun can be bright. I don't get how basic facts can make one feel morally superior...but hey, YMMV.
I don't really attach morality to simple recitation of facts. Apparently you do.
Your misconceptions are quite profound. There's nothing I can say or share that can penetrate your puerile parrot-thick understanding.
...says the guy who rages against superficial stereotypes of men and pursues to be a superficial stereotype of women.
Tell me more, please. I'm fascinated.
Hey, you never explained what consists of the role of man. I'm quite curious what you seem to think it is.
I take no joy in writing the above.
Nor do I. I feel pity more than anything else. Somebody mutilated you. I'd be upset if it were me.
No need for pity on my part. I have made my peace with my body, my self, and my community.
There's not much, if anything, that I can tell you, so why bother?
Since you did bring up how you couldn't change the "Male role" --- can you explain what is "the male role"?
I'm glad you are happy with your choice, Hoyden. Best of luck to you
"You should be a role model for Jenner."
Thanks, but no thanks. I hadn't even heard of Jenner before Ann posted on May 2. I imagine the media is pumping the story for all the usual reasons; sensation and money. I have my hands full with me. I thought by sharing I could offer a different perspective but folks clearly aren't buying it. Nevertheless my writing has been helpful for me to put in words some of the things I've learned about myself and how my perspective has evolved. It's also instructive to see how folks interpret, misinterpret, and impute motive and behavior that is untrue.
Thank you, MayBee. I am happy than I've ever been, and luck played a small part. The hard part is figuring out who I am, apart from any role, and to become that person.
damikesc, I will try to explain "male role" but realize this is probably a losing proposition since by definition it is my perspective, which has no credibility here.
I learned early in childhood that just because I saw girls hug their friends I could too. Boys don't hug, show affection with each other or share feelings. When I met girls in high school I wanted a friend, not someone to have sex with. The guy role in dating felt completely foreign. The whole dating/relationship thing never clicked for me. Guys were always talking about their dicks, or someone elses dick, or how much sex they got last night. None of it made any sense to me. For as long as I can remember I was aware of the differences between boys and girls. I liked some of the things I could do because I was a boy but I never liked being a boy. Those hobbies and interests were my sole source of enjoyment growing up. I thought someday I would feel different but in my late 20's after checking off my bucket list of things that were suppose to make me happy (marriage, career, environment) I realized they had nothing to do with being happy. I knew in that moment there was nothing I would be able to do to find personal fulfillment and meaning. I also knew what I had worked so hard to keep hidden from myself all those years, that I wouldn't feel the way I felt if I had been a girl. The can of worms was open and now it was going to take a bigger can to hold them. Therapists told me they could not change the way I felt but would help me to live with the feelings. I knew that sucky life was not worth living. There was no there there for me.
Well, gotta cut this short. My apologies in advance for inadequately presenting a convincing case.
"Where were you in 1976?"
In college and completely uninterested in anything sports.
He's a lumberjack and he's okay.
Monkeyboy wrote:
"Some days when I lie awake in bed at night I worry that we have become the Weimar republic or the last days of Rome and we revel in frivolous BS.
Other days I worry that we have already past Weimar and just haven't realized it yet."
We have become Sodom and Gomorrah. It's a post-truthy America kind of thing.
Plan accordingly.
So, basically, you were a gay man and decided to mutilate yourself instead of getting the help you clearly desperately needed from people qualified to offer it. Your therapists did you no favors.
Snort...gay man. Wrong again. No children. I knew I was having a hard enough time keeping myself on the planet. No way I would father a child. All your other assumptions about me are just that and they tell me more about you than you think you know about me. You can go back to Jenner bashing because that clearly works at the level of your understanding.
Snort...gay man. Wrong again. No children. I knew I was having a hard enough time keeping myself on the planet. No way I would father a child. All your other assumptions about me are just that and they tell me more about you than you think you know about me.
Kind of curious where the fathering a child thing came from since I doubted you have a child and, bluntly, couldn't be bothered to care if you did.
Jenner is unbelievably selfish to do this to HIS kids. Anybody who does this with kids is a selfish prick whose usefulness to mankind has ended.
hoyden- I'm going to assume explaining why you felt you needed to live as a woman is like explaining why you love someone. You can explain and explain, but the words don't really describe *why* you feel that way.
The things you did describe kind of break my heart, because they sound like stereotypes that certainly aren't rules for living. Boys don't hug friends and talk about their dicks all the time sound like life rules that are easy enough to ignore. I don't know, maybe your family was really rigid about the way you acted, or maybe wherever you lived was really rigid.
Anyway, as I said, I'm glad you are satisfied now.
MayBee, I have no explanation for how I feel. It took almost 30 years just to figure out what I felt. It's not like you can pick up a book or watch a movie to see how it played out. The good news is I have a life I wouldn't change one bit because it has brought me to now. My family didn't do feelings so three was nowhere to go. I learned you didn't need feelings to be successful as a male. Otherwise my family was relaxed and I could pretty much whatever I wanted so long as I didn't bring the police by. My father inspired me to pursue my hobbies and career.
I don't hold out my experience as something to emulate, it's just my story.
MayBee, one more thing I have said before but may have been lost in the noise. I was inspired by the women who became welders and engineers. They pointed the way for me as a role model that integrated the fun things with their feeling. It wasn't an either/or choice. I also appreciate men in ways that were unthinkable when I lived in the role.
My family didn't do feelings so three was nowhere to go. I learned you didn't need feelings to be successful as a male.
I'm very sorry for that.
Sad perhaps but still true. Feelings are optional.
Well, it's easier to express feelings and keep a penis, than have to get rid of one to keep the other.
For sure a more desirable choice and a YMMV situation.
Post a Comment