Non TS/TV males who post as women on WP, testimonials wanted, enquire within Options

[A Horse With No Name]

Wr is the only place I have encountered males (above the age of 10) who does not know, or care, what a vagina is )

Don't you worry, big mama - I'm here to fill in the void. (Literally and figuratively!)

[The Adversary]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

[Alison]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc.

[Ottava]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc.

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

You were trolling and looking for any excuse, like you are now. An apology would be warranted, but you don't apologize for your ill behavior. I already proven that it was very common, and you have proven that you just want to cause problems. You are acting like a child.



The Adversary: "Genital area." As I pointed out, Alison would have found some inane excuse to try and make the same claim. After all, genitals refer to the sex organs and not necessarily the skin around them. There is no defense of Alison blatantly trolling, and her current action and trying to bring it up shows that she is incapable of dealing with the actual critics that prove that TG is insanity. She hates that, knows she has no way to prevent the reality of it, and must turn to side games, shows, trolling, etc., to try and hide that fact.

Johns Hopkins refuses to give those people sex changes and instead deems them mentally ill. There is no way around that, and it makes her case look utterly stupid.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Wed 9th November 2011, 7:49pm

[Alison]

.. no polite word of describing the area people would shave there.

Genital area.

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc.

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Keyword: area

Mons pubis = pubic mound, from the Latin. You done now? :roll eyes:

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

[A Horse With No Name]

Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Oh, thank goodness the conversations here on WR are becoming more interesting! For a while, there was nothing here for me to read!

[Abd]

Really? Because the "pubic" area, meaning the bone, wouldn't have led to also sarcastic and stupid comments? Or bikini area also referring to breasts?

Ottava never learned the trick of *shutting up* when he is out of his, ah, "field."

So a "bikini wax" would mean waxing the breasts? Say what? It just got worse. Words carry meaning from usage, not from Ottava Logic. If you haven't used the words, or heard or read them enough, you can only imagine what they mean. "She shaved her pubic area" is extremely clear in usage, it refers to shaving "public hair." "

You were trolling and looking for any excuse, like you are now. An apology would be warranted, but you don't apologize for your ill behavior. I already proven that it was very common, and you have proven that you just want to cause problems. You are acting like a child.

For maximum effect, I'll link again to the post Alison was pointing to. Ottava, again, doesn't know how to laugh and say "Oops! That was stupid! Now, pass the beer!" Or whatever. Instead, he has to be Right, and he will go on for years about how Right he was, imagining that it is, in the least, convincing, and he proceeds to accuse anyone bold enough to point out his gross bloopers of this or that, such as "you are acting like a child."

Does Ottava know what "waxing" involves? I've helped a woman do it. Geez, the things women will do! And that was legs.

The Adversary: "Genital area." As I pointed out, Alison would have found some inane excuse to try and make the same claim. After all, genitals refer to the sex organs and not necessarily the skin around them. There is no defense of Alison blatantly trolling, and her current action and trying to bring it up shows that she is incapable of dealing with the actual critics that prove that TG is insanity. She hates that, knows she has no way to prevent the reality of it, and must turn to side games, shows, trolling, etc., to try and hide that fact.

When Ottava's arguments are utterly demolished, he then asserts that the others are trolling, pretending, lying, and in blatant denial of the obvious truth, i.e., whatever Ottava is asserting. It's amazing. It's consistent, and he seems to be completely unable to stop, no matter who tells him, friends, enemies, passers-by. Arbitrators, administrators, etc.

"She shaved her genital area' would not refer to the "genitals," it refers to an area, the "genital area," part of which will grow hair. Ottava is with language like he is with wiki policy: he assumes that policies should be applied strictly, just the way they are written, according to the meanings he assigns to the worlds. He has no concept of changes in meaning due to context. My God, he interprets poetry? How does he pull that off?

Johns Hopkins refuses to give those people sex changes and instead deems them mentally ill. There is no way around that, and it makes her case look utterly stupid.

Ottava cited what he called a "press release." This was it. It's not a press release. It's an article in a Johns Hopkins magazine. It does mention, in passing, that Johns Hopkins stopped doing "sex change surgeries," but it doesn't really say why. This is what is said about it:

“It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely.

That's it. Ottava's turning this into a source for his idea that people who want sex-change surgery are sick, his citing it as if it denied what the user he'd just replied to was saying -- when, in fact, the article is consistent with that -- shows how, for Ottava, first and foremost, the principle on which he operates is that he is Right. Period. No room for any dispute. And if you dispute it, well, you must be a liar, deluded, a fool, or worse.

What Johns Hopkins operates is a sexual behaviors clinic. My guess is that after sufficient counseling, some patients are referred to those who do surgical modifications. But the article doesn't say that, it's just my understanding of what happens in the field.

What I do know is that some people are born with ambiguous genitalia. What used to be done was to decide, early, that they should be this or that, and early surgeries were done. That's almost completely discredited now, the trend is entirely to accept people as they are, and not try to force them into some clear gender physicality. When they are older, they may make informed choices. But that's a different phenomenon than the situation with those who are physically one gender, clearly, and presumably genetically so, and who decide to change that. Not being such a person, and not knowing any personally (yet, I'm actually working with a woman whose ex-husband, the father of her children, is now a woman), I'd really hesitate to judge them. And this is entirely different, really, from "homosexuality," and simply shows how shoving people into categories is damaging to their humanity.

How about "troll"?

[Ottava]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

[Vigilant]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

Poor, poor Jeffrey Peters...

I think you should probably stop posting about vaginas until you've actually touched one. Your (alleged) birth does not count.

You need to find an Amy Farrah Fowler as soon as possible. Your obvious sexual tension regarding TS/TV people is completely transparent and a bit disturbing. Ditto your obsessive personal issues with naked, but not pornographic, pictures of children.

Here's your TODO list Jeffrey:
1) Seek professional psychiatric help. Be honest when answering the background questions.
2) Find an analogue for Amy Farrah Fowler. Rid yourselves of your pent up sexual tension.
3) Finish your useless thesis so you can step over the PhD line in the sand.
4) Never edit anything related to wikipedia again. You are not well suited to collaborative work with others.

Your friend,
Vigilant

[Abd]

Poor, poor Jeffrey Peters...

I think you should probably stop posting about vaginas until you've actually touched one. Your (alleged) birth does not count.

You need to find an Amy Farrah Fowler as soon as possible. Your obvious sexual tension regarding TS/TV people is completely transparent and a bit disturbing. Ditto your obsessive personal issues with naked, but not pornographic, pictures of children.

Here's your TODO list Jeffrey:
1) Seek professional psychiatric help. Be honest when answering the background questions.
2) Find an analogue for Amy Farrah Fowler. Rid yourselves of your pent up sexual tension.
3) Finish your useless thesis so you can step over the PhD line in the sand.
4) Never edit anything related to wikipedia again. You are not well suited to collaborative work with others.

Of course, he can't edit Wikipedia. His edits on meta recently are amazing. See this discussion with Michael Suarez and Seth Finklestein. Ottava claims that he's for the bans because it's right. He's not quite got it there. He's for the bans because Ottava is Always Right. And because Poetlister is Bad.

Notice his rationale, it's diagnostic.

According to Hobbes, once you violate your social requirement to not harm others your protection from harm (as a result of governmental punishment) is valid. It is that simple. Freedom exists only until it meets someone else's freedom, and there is no right to use Wikipedia. If you harm people, you are gone. It is that simple. Any attempt to justify keeping those people around is justification of harming others, and no one has that right. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava is a throwback. This is a justification for capital punishment, and against any idea of forgiveness or possibility of redemption. Even the older systems of tribal justice limited response to return of like action. Whom did Poetlister seek to ban?

It's argued that he harmed someone. What he did wasn't illegal. It may have been foolish, and it might even have been a civil tort, but far worse, in terms of actual damage, was apparently done to him. And none of that is really relevant. What he did was years ago. Some have argued that he's still pretending to be a woman. I'm still trying to figure out how this is harming someone. What, "wrongful incitement of erections?" What?

Gives the word "tort" new dimensions.

Ottava was unable to function civilly at Wikiversity. That's why he lost his tools there. He called someone a liar, without necessity -- it wasn't anyone's business at Wikiversity -- and when this was challenged, he was warned, he said, "But it's true. He's a liar." So I blocked him. Somebody had to stand up to the Ottavan Emperor. So I lost my tools for a time (immediately, because Ottava unblocked himself, revision-deleted his own block log -- cool eh, sometimes I bring this out in people, revealing what's been hidden --, then went to meta and lied to them about the situation. Yes. He lied. I don't say that very often about people. Okay, maybe he was merely delusional.). So? Ahem. I did it because it was right, and I took the consequences, and, where it counts, I was vindicated.

Steven Walling had removed Ottava's previous debate with Finklestein because it went off topic. Ottava takes it off topic in the same way, deja vu all over again. I really doubt he is long for meta. He has an open RfC there. Maybe its about time it get closed with the obvious conclusion. I've supported Poetlister on Wikiversity because he really was making positive contributions there, besides the issue of upholding local block policy. Ottava makes few positive contributions, mostly window dressing, like welcoming newcomers to meta. However, he incites a huge amount of useless debate, and he's utterly unresponsive, there is little or no redeeming value. Is there anyone who could mentor him? What I've seen is that he's been blocked, and then unblocked with no safeguards at all. It's a common error, not limited to Ottava. If you are going to unblock someone and want them to be successful, you need to watch them, given them guidance, and restrain them when they start going off the path.

Wikipedia is lousy at that, and so are a lot of Wikimedians. All or nothing. Kind of like this new idea of global bans that Ottava is fiercely promoting.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 10th November 2011, 1:10am

[Wikicrusher2]

So, Jeff, is it "more cruder" (sic!) to refer to "shaving the pubic mound" than the incorrect "vagina"? I don't see how it can be considered impolite to use "pubic mound" (though your priest may disagree???).

By the way, Abd, this was not a case of Ottava interpreting words' meanings too strictly, but using an inappropriate term and then saying that correcting him was being too strict regarding the meaning of the word "vagina". The general rule for him is that He Must Be Right, No Exceptions. Even when he's not...

[Ottava]

So, Jeff, is it "more cruder" (sic!) to refer to "shaving the pubic mound" than the incorrect "vagina"? I don't see how it can be considered impolite to use "pubic mound" (though your priest may disagree???).

By the way, Abd, this was not a case of Ottava interpreting words' meanings too strictly, but using an inappropriate term and then saying that correcting him was being too strict regarding the meaning of the word "vagina". The general rule for him is that He Must Be Right, No Exceptions. Even when he's not...

Have you ever said "pubic mound"? Are there the "public mound dialogues"? No, that is silly and the word is foul. I already showed where there were over a million hits on google with "vagina" and "shaving". A more specific phrase has over 20k hits making it clear that it most likely isn't men using the phrase. It is a colloquial use. There isn't anything "wrong", and there isn't a reason for you to go on and on.

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 10th November 2011, 1:47am

[carbuncle]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

[Abd]

EDIT: And, as I keep saying, there's no point in endless 'debate' with Ottava. He's impervious to reason ...

(I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting now. This is a complete waste of time ...)

You shouldn't have posted to begin with. You were trolling. You attack me, and you can't dispute that there is a substantial amount of people, including women, that use the phrase I use. {{citation needed}}
Instead, you make all sorts of absurd and idiotic claims. The only reason why you are acting so embarrassingly is because you know that there is no justification for transgender anything because it is insanity and nothing else.

This is a beautiful and clear example of trolling. Ottava doesn't get it. He trolls for the responses he gets. In the work I'm doing this would be called his "act."

Respondent realizes that the conversation is a total waste of time and stops. So Ottava throws a final response, tempting her -- or anyone else -- to point out how nuts he is. He's telling a woman what language women use. While it's possible that he heard someone say "shaved her vagina" somewhere, the world is vast. That he repeated this shows a lack of familiarity with the language, and maybe the anatomy, and that was the point.

A sane person, who doesn't have a "kick me" act like Ottava, would just say, "Okay, weak usage. So?" But part of Ottava's act is that Ottava Is Always Right, which, to him, means that They are Wrong. Wrong, I tell you, and anyone who disagrees is a Total Idiot and has no right to speak in a public forum, and, if anyone has ever hurt anyone, they should be beheaded so they can't do it again. Right? Do I need to ask. After all, Ottava is Always Right.

Ottava is busy on meta telling a steward what he can and cannot do. Ottava is Right, the steward should just give up and admit it. Funny, they never do. Did this act ever work for Ottava other than to confirm his views about himself? My guess is that, once in a while, someone says, to get him to shut up, "You're right." It's the power of intermittent reinforcement. Dangerous.

Ottava, you are right.

Didn't I say so?

[Ottava]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

[SB_Johnny]

Pubic area, pubic region, bikini area, "down there", etc, etc, etc.

Ottava might be better off sticking to less anatomical, not-so-vulgar terms like "yaya", perhaps.

[that one guy]

If you don't like common usage, then go take it up in a discussion on it. It doesn't change the fact that credible psychologists have deemed TG insanity and have discontinued allowing people to get surgery and instead give them help to try and cure their problem and help them accept their birth gender.

Ottava, you are right. Many people seem to be making the same mistake that you made. And some credible psychiatrists have deemed sexual reassignment as "madness" (I mean, they wouldn't be advising the Vatican on such matters if they weren't credible), although other equally credible psychiatrists disagree.

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

tl;dr: they see me trollin, they hating

[carbuncle]

For your last statement - why not show where? No one has, which I find odd. I'm sure some psychiatrist out there think it is fine.

However, the individual I linked to was running Johns Hopkins Psych department, which is very, very prominent and they were the first to pioneer the surgery. It is very telling when they backed down and reconsidered it.

By the way, do you think that, with the anatomy claims above, surgery can ever give you a true "penis" or "vagina"? It will always be a simulacrum, something false. You cannot switch a Y chromosome to an X or X to Y. Sure, there is the rare combinations of others, but they are a genetic defect, most of the time result in a lack of reproductability, and don't really alter a man wanting to become a woman or a woman wanting to become a man.

Why would people even be comfortable with this? Would you be comfortable if someone came up to you and said "I shouldn't have been born with this hand, it doesn't feel right, it needs to go, I need to have it chopped off"? I highly doubt you would be. We are all born as we are. The whole "gay rights" movement is based on the premise that they are born that way so we should be comfortable with them. However, TG by their very definition, are unable to be comfortable with themselves. They think surgery and radically altering themselves will make it all better? That is exactly what plastic surgery addicts think, what anorexic think, and what anyone with any of these body dysmorphia type of disorders think.

Instead of celebrating these people and saying how great they are for hating themselves so much, we should instead try to help them accept themselves. They need support to fix their problem, not people saying "oh, this is great because it fits in with my political ideology, so mutilate yourself as much as you want".

I think everyone here knows that there is little point in attempting to debate you using things like "facts" or "arguments", because you just see right through those foolish rhetorical devices. For my part, I'm interested in your views on gender.

Surgically constructed genitalia are obviously not the same as biologically formed genitalia, so I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. If a woman has surgery for breast cancer and then has a surgical breast reconstruction, does she have a "true" breast or a simulacrum? If it's not a "true" breast, then why would she go through with that surgery? Could there be something else at work besides simple genetics?

[Ottava]

I think everyone here knows that there is little point in attempting to debate you using things like "facts" or "arguments", because you just see right through those foolish rhetorical devices. For my part, I'm interested in your views on gender.

Surgically constructed genitalia are obviously not the same as biologically formed genitalia, so I'm not quite sure how to answer your question. If a woman has surgery for breast cancer and then has a surgical breast reconstruction, does she have a "true" breast or a simulacrum? If it's not a "true" breast, then why would she go through with that surgery? Could there be something else at work besides simple genetics?

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

[carbuncle]

We call them "fake breasts" when a woman gets implants for cosmetic reasons, so why would they suddenly become "real" when we feel bad for the person? That should tell you that it is more PC than actuality. The double standards of descriptive language should key you into the problem.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't referring to the use of breast implants. The reconstruction methods used in many cases do not involve implants and are therefore more similar to the surgical construction of genitalia. The resulting breasts are "non-functional" in the sense that they can not produce milk. Are those "true" breasts?

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights? In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc. The feminist community is all up in arms now when they realized that someone merely has to say "yeah, I'm a girl" and that is enough to give them every single right a female has. That would violate privacy in bathrooms, expose those under age to predators, separate out female dorms, allow men onto female athletic teams, etc. It effective undermines all of the feminist progress to establish equality by giving people who never had to deal with the problems of being a female the benefits that are intended to make up for those problems.

This is akin to allowing someone to tattoo their body to a dark color and letting them claim they are African American for benefits while claiming "deep down, I feel like I am actually black and should have been born that way".

So in the fantasy world that you inhabit, there are special benefits for women and racial minorities?