Shemales or Transsexuals

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by Tsluver23

My thing is if the person still has a cock then it's a shemale. Not until you go forth with castration will you be considered a transexual.

I'm not even going to get into transgender vs. Transsexual because that's a stupid way to split hairs.

This issue isn't even at what point one can/should be considered trans* (either gendered or sexual). It has become a discussion of the word "shemale". You have 100% of M2F women here saying they don't like the word to some degree or another. I know plenty of trans*women who work all types of jobs - from escort to teacher and only one of them has any desire to use that word for herself (and she's not in "the industry").

Of the gals who work as escorts or in porn none of them like it. They use it for business reasons and will respond to it, but they don't actually like it. It isn't clever, or empowering, or cute, or even particularly descriptive.

If one is serious about an attraction to Trans*women, perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a word that is problematic for so many of us behind or expect many of us to be offended when it is used.

[Marine_N41_432]

I'm afraid that ' Shemale ' has to be a no-no when adressing an M2f Transgender
Transexual or Transvestite, simply because it is unnecessary. What you see is what you should respond to with some consideration too. Having said that I find ' Shemale ' very useful in a Search for Ladyboy visual material.
Carelessness can hurt feelings, so why not watch what you say. ( No offence to all you spontaneous types on this Forum ! )

[Amy]

I'm curious that the original offence stemmed from use of the word "cute" rather than "shemale".

I for one appreciae it when someone calls me cute. It's not a term I commonly see used outside of genetic females, except in communities like this one.

[Pascal]

A few days ago I was watching foot movies...I love girls feet. Later that night I discovered that it was no girl but a transvestite! I as a man was watching with a hard on in my pants at mans feet! Kinda scary but what does it matter? I liked the feeling. I'm openminded. I love shemales since I saw the first one in a magazine in 1990. A lot of them are more attractive than real women. And I don't care if you're a transvestite, transexual or gay as long as you are a nice person.

[jmadaf]

I think thats where all this discrimination starts is we don't know what to call anybody these days, and say the wrong thing and somebody is offended. And sometimes that is not what we are doing, we are misinformed.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by Amy

I'm curious that the original offence stemmed from use of the word "cute" rather than "shemale".

I for one appreciae it when someone calls me cute. It's not a term I commonly see used outside of genetic females, except in communities like this one.

Yeah I am confused by this thread. Is she offended by the word "cute", or calling her a "shemale". There seems to be two differnent responses being posted here.
Which one is it mate? Did u call her a "cute shemale", or just "cute" or just call her a "shemale"?

[smc]

Originally Posted by jmadaf

I think thats where all this discrimination starts is we don't know what to call anybody these days, and say the wrong thing and somebody is offended. And sometimes that is not what we are doing, we are misinformed.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Yeah I am confused by this thread. Is she offended by the word "cute", or calling her a "shemale". There seems to be two differnent responses being posted here.
Which one is it mate? Did u call her a "cute shemale", or just "cute" or just call her a "shemale"?

Doesn't anyone look at the dates of posts, or at the profiles of members? This question was posted THREE YEARS AGO! The OP hasn't posted anything on this site for more than a year. The OP hasn't been on this site in five months.

And, MOST IMPORTANT, after posting the original question, the OP never once came back to this thread he started and posted anything in response to the discussion he precipitated. That should tell you everything you need to know about why the thread was started in the first place.

[new believer]

Well maybe you're right about some things in your statement here, but the point is that the topic is still relevent. And yes the time goes by. I found two things of interest going over some comments. First, Fran use to be a lot more 'involved' and I do miss her very very much. Seeing her avatar and 'hearing' her comments always brought a happy spark to most of us. I still adore her even though she's somewhat elusive these days.
The second thing I noticed is a comment by me. Well, if I were to put on a dress(sorry, it's not happening)I would no longer look like a female 'wolverine'. I've since shaved off my mutton chops.

Originally Posted by smc

Doesn't anyone look at the dates of posts, or at the profiles of members? This question was posted THREE YEARS AGO! The OP hasn't posted anything on this site for more than a year. The OP hasn't been on this site in five months.

And, MOST IMPORTANT, after posting the original question, the OP never once came back to this thread he started and posted anything in response to the discussion he precipitated. That should tell you everything you need to know about why the thread was started in the first place.

[smc]

Originally Posted by new believer

Well maybe you're right about some things in your statement here, but the point is that the topic is still relevent. And yes the time goes by. I found two things of interest going over some comments. First, Fran use to be a lot more 'involved' and I do miss her very very much. Seeing her avatar and 'hearing' her comments always brought a happy spark to most of us. I still adore her even though she's somewhat elusive these days.
The second thing I noticed is a comment by me. Well, if I were to put on a dress(sorry, it's not happening)I would no longer look like a female 'wolverine'. I've since shaved off my mutton chops.

I'm not going to argue the "relevance" of the topic. However, the question posted by the OP is rather ridiculous ... and wow, did he ever miss the point of the response he got from the women in question. She focused on his gender-identification language, not the word "cute" (if we are to believe the story exactly as written). She told him to refer to her as a "transsexual," not as a shemale. And yet, what is the insipid question he poses?:

Can someone tell me if the term "cute" is onerous to most shemales.

So, am I to understand that what you think is "still relevant" is the question of whether the term cute is "onerous to most shemales"?

Heaven help us.

(And, yes, I note the title of the thread, completely absent from the actual question posed by the OP.)