"She", not "he", guys

[BigV]

Very helpful, very entertaining. I thought about saying "hysterical"... I reconsidered. (but then I just said it, so, dumbass=me).

Seriously Pam, that was great. I think hq should consider question #7. For myself, I actually have had a version of question #9 in my head "Are you a man or a woman?", though I phrased it differently "How should I refer to you?". In fact, it's kind of what this whole thread's about.

Anyhow, I found the video useful and funny. She's got that eye roll *down*, I would not want it used against me. Thanks again.

[henry quirk]

"question #7"

I'd be glad to consider it...unfortunately the machine I'm on has no sound, so -- if the question is part of the video -- I can't access it.

Just post it and I'll consider it.

#

"we are not going to bite your head off or jump your bones right there"

Of course not...don’t think any one in this thread suggested anything like that.

#

"I hereby authorise everyone to ask me, as a representative of the greater transsexual community, most any question."

Okeedoke.

Ibby, in-forum, has mentioned his 'feminine side' and/or 'feeling female' (I paraphrase).

Is this the same for you, and -- if so -- can you describe concretely what this means?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Calpernia Adams

bad question number 7:

Anything about my genitals.

in the video at about 7:12.

Her reply:

Originally Posted by Calpernia Adams

Again, you perverted, disgusting freak. Don't ask me anything about my genitals, unless I offer. You wouldn't ask a co-worker, a friend, or probably even a family member probing, intimate questions about their genitals unless you had a pre-existing relationship that was kind of on that level. You know, this is often a favorite question from men, gay or straight, and usually their questions involve the words 'cut' and 'off'. My brain usually Turns Off when I hear this question, 'cause it's gross and weird and morbid.

Just because I know that most of you are dumb f***s, I'll educate you a little bit on what happens during vaginoplasty. That's known as sex change surgery to you dummies. In vaginoplasty, doctors don't cut off genitals, they refashion existing tissues and nerves, sort of going from out to in, to make a fully functioning, beautiful, sensate vulva and vagina.

So, um, that's about all you need to know, really. If you're desperate for more information, you can go to www.tsroadmap.com to get the full 411 on what goes on in our pants. And that little thing we call a life that surrounds genitals.

As a side note, womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis. I hear a lot of dummies, college jocks, frat boys, construction worker types making jokes about oh, if someone's penis gets cut off then they're a girl. Well, Surprise! Women are more than the lack of a penis. Women have their own genitals. They're internal, true and most of you men out there have probably never seen them. Or at least not very much outside the family. But, women have their own genitalia that have nothing to do with having or not having a penis. And, to be honest, I have known a lot of transwomen, both pre op and post op, who I would definitely consider women no matter what their genital or surgical status. Basically, just stay out of their pants, unless you're dating.

So, to summarize, no, you can't see it. And, no I don't want to answer any more questions about it, at least not in the first twenty minutes of our acquaintance. Unless you buy me a steak dinner first. And no, Sizzler doesn't count.

[henry quirk]

Why should I consider this question?

Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?

The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.

#

"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"

Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.

How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Why should I consider this question?

Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?

The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.

#

"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"

Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.

How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).

Really?

I agree about it being irrelevant*, but you certainly posted about it in this thread, you opened the thread with the very idea at the center of your post.

*Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.

Yes?

No?

Opinions?









*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.

[Sundae]

V, note that HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he".

[BigV]

I missed that.

[DanaC]

It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.

[henry quirk]

V,

There's a context to my (and every one else's) posts.

If you dis-embed one post, one line, from the others then you can make it seem that I mean 'this' instead of 'that'.

Yes, I "*certainly posted about it in this thread", but within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness.

As I say in post 164...

'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).'

#

"Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours"

Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself.

##

Sun,

"HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"."

Because he's a guy.

##

Dana,

"...a turd when it's floating in a sewer"

Of all the folks disagreeing with me, you, Dana are the most puzzling.


(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.

I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.


(2) As liberal or progressive or whatever, I thought you'd appreciate 'tolerance'.

I make no threats and levy no insults against Ibby or any other transgendered person. I tell him (over and over) he SHOULD DO EXACTLY AS HE LIKES WITH HIS FLESH and this isn't enough for you. As I will not submit to the current 'correct' view, my tolerance (indifference, really) is dismissed and I'm called 'bully' and 'cunt'.

Fundamentally: Ibby wants to be called 'she' when in fact he is 'he' and I'm the bad guy because I won't walk the proscribed line dictated by Ibby and his supporters.

*shrug*











*and, if that had been my only post in this thread, you might have a platform to call me out, but it wasn't my only post.

[Stormieweather]

I think, if someone feels insulted by a certain label, the refusal to use whatever terminogy they've expressed they would prefer is obdurate and flat out rude.

Sort of like referring to a female as "woman" to her face. Ie: "When is dinner going to be ready, woman?". Maybe she'd prefer to be called domestic goddess or supreme commander of the kitchen, or even Susan. While "woman" is technically accurate, if she finds it insulting to be generalized and minimized, considerate individuals will call her whatever name she prefers, instead.

It's pretty much a sideways "fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want".

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

V,

(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.

I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.

Well, as a historian, 'facts' are very much a starting point. The real work lies in interpretation. And 'facts' as they are presented can be tricky beasts indeed, particularly when we are dealing with individual experience and identity.

I can see how my responding with 'feelings' might confuse you. But, my particular fields of interest/expertise, are very much concerned with experience and identity.

I have two main areas of interest which crossover with each other at various points. The first, and central to my research is the soldier experience during the long eighteenth century, and particularly during the Napoleonic era. How they identified themselves and were identified by others is a fairly fundamental part of that.

The second area of interest and the area I usually teach, is gender in the same period. How was it constructed, applied, accepted, performed, or rejected? How and why did gender constructions change? How was gender used culturally? for example the masculinity of British national identity, versus the femininity which the British ascribed to their 'natural and necessary enemy' the French; the gendering of the 'other' in the context of imperialism and exploration, the use of gender to codify and understand alternate cultures (the taxonomic studies of the female form in different races - with each racial type ranked according to the size, shape, pertness of the breasts, and the degree to which each culture conformed to 'proper' gender roles (e.g the separate spheres of male and female lives); scientific understandings of gender and the medicalisation of the female within that

The ways in which masculinity was constructed and applied, and how that changed. The ways in which femininity was constructed and applied and how that changed. The way individuals experienced and performed gender, and how they self-identified (did the middling orders of 18th century Britain conform, for example, to the 'separate spheres' model which permeates popular culture, advice books, scientific and philosophical tracts? ). The ways in which gender constructions loosened and tightened according to the needs and insecurities of the time. How new ways of approaching the natural world (including humans) altered the ways in which men and women thought of themselves and each other.

I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry.

[Happy Monkey]

henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Ibby, in-forum, has mentioned his 'feminine side' and/or 'feeling female' (I paraphrase).

Is this the same for you, and -- if so -- can you describe concretely what this means?

That's kind of hard to answer, as I am not sure how a man feels. I know how I was told that I should feel by the men in my life and that was at odds with what I did feel.

I cannot really speak for Ibby. She will have to answer for herself. But I will venture to say that Ibby is not a transsexual. She is further to the male side of the gender spectrum than I am. She is exploring her identity and looking for her place in the world. That's fine. I know where I belong.

My feelings are those of a female, judging by what women and therapists (I've had several over the years) tell me. I do know that I do not and never have fit in with men. I just don't have a lot in common with them. Even as a child, I stayed closer to my mother than my father. I preferred being in the kitchen cooking to watching football with the men. Wine to beer. Talking to playing. In short, I displayed feminine traits from an early age.

When I discovered that clothes can change the way I feel, oh BOY! I went to town. But in private while I explored this new avenue. I quickly learned to be ashamed and to feel guilt. This is something that I continue to struggle to overcome. What I finally realized, is that women's clothing felt natural to me and men's clothing felt unnatural. This holds true today and forever.

I hope that answered your question.

Pam

[DanaC]

Slight side step, because my head's in the eighteenth-century today :P


I've taken this from wikipedia, because I havent the heart to go searching through texts:

In 18th century England, a "molly" referred to an effeminate usually homosexual male.[1][2] Mollies, and other third sex identities, were one precursor to the broader 'homosexual' identity of the 20th and 21st centuries.[3]

The most famous molly house was Mother Clap's open for two years from 1724-1726 in the Holborn area of London.

Patrons of Molly houses who dressed in women's clothing were called "Mollies", they would take on a female persona, have a female name, and affect feminine mannerisms and speech. Marriage ceremonies between a Mollie and his male lover were enacted to symbolise their partnership and commitment, and the role-play at times incorporated a ritualised giving birth.[4]

At the time, under the Buggery Act 1533, buggery was a capital offence in England, and court records of buggery trials of the period provide much of the evidence about molly houses.[5]

On 9 May 1726, three men (Gabriel Lawrence, William Griffin, and Thomas Wright) were hanged at Tyburn for buggery following a raid of Margaret Clap's molly house. Charles Hitchen, the Under City Marshal (and crime lord), was also convicted (in 1727) of attempted buggery at a Molly house

Two things strike me about this. One, is that gender performance has always been problematic for those whose sense of self did not conform strictly to the culturally constructed norms of the day. And second is that, whilst right now what is at stake is at worst violent assault and at best the experience (hopefully temporary) of shame described by Pam, the stakes have been much higher at other times and yet...those people still engaged in gender performance which put them at risk of utter ruination or capital sentence.

It has taken a very, very long time, for our culture(s) to accept something which it has always had within it. I hope, one day, discussions like this one will seem as odd to contemporaries as discussions on women's wandering wombs, and the genetic inferiority of the black man do to us now. Both of which, incidentally, had scientific 'facts' to give them weight.