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".

[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?

[Ottava]

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?

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

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?

Never heard of Affirmative Action? Title IX? We've made fun of pretenders who wish to take advantage of these benefits. They are benefits designed to off set social hindrances, and white men shouldn't be allowed to merely claim fanciful things to attain them.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 10th November 2011, 5:34pm

[Abd]

If you are adding things, it is a fake boob. There are many people who have cosmetic surgery with real skin added, but it isn't theirs and it is fake. Plastic surgery regardless of the adding of "plastic" as you know it is still fake.

Ottava is always asserting the primacy of language -- his language -- over underlying realities. What's the function of a breast? i doubt that he's got a clue as to the variety of functions. Specifically, what's the function of size? Rather obviously, it is attractive to some males. If a person finds a mate, someone whose life enhances their own, because of an implant, was this a "fake breast"? Conversely, if a person has breast reduction surgery, which is pretty common, does this mean that the breasts are less real?

It's all about words for Ottava. An image above was presented of a woman with a T-shirt, and, yes, she was obviously cold. Does Ottava recognize this? Does he understand the effect of such an image? Does that effect depend on whether or not there some silicone or whatever underneath the skin?

None of this really means anything to Ottava, he's only about being Right, which, for him, is about language, the meanings of words, with Ottava hewing to his Right meanings. Everyone else is wrong.

Talk about dysfunctional! The purpose of language is communication, not being "right." If the words communicate, they are functional. If not, not. What's communicated? Now, ''that's an interesting question," eh?

There is more communication in that wet T-shirt image than in an entire topic here. Much more. A picture is worth 1000 words. Often more. A real visual perception in real life, incomparable. Thanks, Horsey.

And why should we say that someone with a penis is a "female" anyway? Why should we let them demand rights?

Ottava does stick his foot in it, doesn't he? The very question shows "us" and "them." They are the deviants, they are not worthy of being considered human. On meta, he's really showing that he'd support the death penalty for "harming people." No forgiveness, no redemption. Great for a supposed Christian, eh?

In Maryland, the Transgender community tried to pass a law that would allow them access to female bathrooms, showers, etc.

OMG. And how precisely is anyone going to know to be offended? Do people stand around trying to judge whether that person is male or female? If a person looks obviously male, and is in a women's room, it will raise hackles. There are "biological women" who are undergoing hormonal therapy to change gender. These women report that they become very male in their attitudes toward women. That they were horrified to find themselves doing what they'd thought was so offensive when men did it, staring at women, etc. Which bathroom should they go into, or are they to be excluded from bathrooms. I've known some women who very much looked like men, and passed as men. What bathroom should they go into?

Ottava has no experience with the real issues, but he sits making judgments ex cathedral. With no authority, just his own arrogance.

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.

Yup. They "say it" by looking like it. Are we going to require ID of people to use the bathroom. Will the driver's license people be required to verify gender? I think Ottava might love that we all have to carry IDs certifying to our "true identity." You know, he used to get a person blocked for using his real name.

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.

False problem. You can find people who object to almost anything. It proves nothing. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for pretending to be a woman and going into a women's room, when the pretense was not a part of an actual scheme to harm, i.e., was a personal identity? Or vice-versa, a woman into a man's room?

If I put on a dress, made myself up to be a particularly ugly woman, which is probably all I could manage, and otherwise making myself appear as a woman, and walked into a men's room, I'd expect to be arrested for disturbing the peace! Social conventions are about appearance, about what actually would cause disruption.

You'd think that Ottava would have noticed that most people in public restrooms don't look closely at the other people, it's very rude. There is no real problem with this, it's been made up. Ottava is pretending that gender shifting causes some horrible social problem, by frustrating our Natural Right to Know the True Gender of Everyone in the Bathroom. Personally, when I'm there, I have other business to attend to. Maybe Ottava stares, trying to find Offenders. That could explain a lot.

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".

If it's fraud, it's fraud. I'm not convinced that I support affirmative action, which creates this issue. Race is not a biological reality. (Let's see what Ottava does with that1). It's a complex question, because there is familial disadvantage, historical harm that has been passed down.

If a person routinely looks "black," then they may suffer from general discrimination. To remedy this, certain remedies might be appropriate, but if these remedies are so much benefit that a person would want to fake being black in order to get them, something has gone drastically wrong. I have a black daughter, and she's suffered discrimination, I'm pretty convinced, and there is no way that this is going to be compensated by some "benefit," other than the fact that she's astonishingly beautiful. She's got amazing tribal markings on her eyes, some guy iisn't going to have a chance!

What I'd have wanted for her was institutional caution against discrimination, not some special benefit.

The thinking behind the discrimination was thinking that is like Ottava's. That some "races" are more likely to be defective, but it would never be said that way, not any more. Rather, what we saw was an assumption that she was "just that way," whereas with a white kid, we knew, the school's problems with her would have been considered remediable. After all, you know how "they" are. Too bad nothing can be done, some of "them" are just that way. Of course we love her, she's a wonderful child, we are sorry to see her be unable to attend, but I'm afraid she has problems we can't deal with, some children like her are just too far gone. It's not her fault that she's one of "them."

This was a four-year old girl, just through major upheavals, coming from a different culture with radically different norms, and actually doing quite well, all things considered. In a different school, no problem. It was surprising. The problem school was highly progressive, on the surface, a research institution affiliated with a university. They did not follow their own policies, which provided clear guidance on how to handle the situation that had arisen. We could have fought it, but then realized we didn't want our daughter exposed to the attitudes.

Racism is not dead, but it's gone into hiding.