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

[the fieryangel]

In the project that I'm currently working on with Peter, Greg, and Eric, I'm writing the chapter on Users. In the section discussing the systemic bias, I'm going to try to go into detail as to the gender gap and possible reasons why this exists.

It's obvious why TS/TV individuals post as women, so that's pretty self-explanatory (dare I say "normal"?) However, it would seem that a great many non-TS/TV males contribute to WP as females, either via sock puppets (à la Kristen Erikson) and also as their main personae. I'm looking for people who would be willing to discuss how posting as females changes the experience on WP. I would also be interested in women who post as males and why they do that. (I know of at least one experience of this happening and I'm sure that there are more....)

Just send me a private message here and we'll discuss it.

[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.

[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".

[Abd]

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.

Ottava is using the bankrupt language of "defect." It's fascist, at root. What's been settled on is that these things are genetic variations. Variation is part of the evolutionary system, variations are more or less functional, as to specific situation. What is a defect in one situation may be a benefit in another. Is the genetic variation of sickle-cell anemia a "defect"? Depends on the environment!

And what about homosexuality. Ottava is using "lack of reproductability" -- as to individuals -- as if this was intrinsically a defect. But various species have members, individuals, who do not reproduce, but who do contribute to the survival of the species. Ottava is reflecting an old church argument, but without the gravitas of the church, nor with its authority.

What is a "true" penis or vagina? "True" is an abstraction, when used in this way. It's a judgment, not a reality. It's a matter of convention, i.e., usage. And Ottava makes up his own conventions, and claims that they are "true."

The original topic here had to do with non-transexual, non-transvestite males who post as women on WP. Ottava, with some assistance, turned it into being about himself, really, the usual. He trolls for this. There is an apparent transvestite male, that certain "guy," who certainly "posted as a woman." Ottava hates the deviants from his norms (as do many of us). But he's highly deviant himself, that's the irony.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 10th November 2011, 6:39pm