"Real Girls"

[franalexes]

hmmmmmm, maybe girls you can knock up and gurls you shouldn't knock down. No?

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, so it does seem that you distinguish between gals like you, and gals who are not like you. Shall we refer to "real" girls from now on as gals unlike Bionca? Or do you have any other suggestions for terminology we should use when talking about "real" girls with people who don't know Bionca?

Curious you would quote only to make half-assed snarky comments. How about the bit where I mentioned that when a distinction needed to be made (indiating that in some cases a distinction would be appropriate) use of a term that implied deception or invalates to a Trans*woman's identity would be appropriate.

Making a distinction where personal safety could be compromised is simple self preservation. I happened to give some suggestions about terms to use, you could always go back a read them. Perhaps you have some you think would be more appropriate?

[SoWhatThenWhy]

I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular post, but I had to chime in. I think the reason some guys don't consider transgendered women "real" women is because they simply aren't. You may be a woman internally, but the term "real" is used to describe the gender we were brought to this earth with. It's like a person associating with a different race; no matter how much they feel they are that race inside, they'll never be.

On top of that, why would you want to be considered a "real" woman anyway? I think there's something special about being transgendered.

Meh, my two cents.

[ila]

Originally Posted by SoWhatThenWhy

I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular post, but I had to chime in. I think the reason some guys don't consider transgendered women "real" women is because they simply aren't. You may be a woman internally, but the term "real" is used to describe the gender we were brought to this earth with. It's like a person associating with a different race; no matter how much they feel they are that race inside, they'll never be.

On top of that, why would you want to be considered a "real" woman anyway? I think there's something special about being transgendered.

Meh, my two cents.

You are wrong. Transwomen are real women. Part of gender identification is in a person's brain. Just because a transwoman's genitals do not match what she feels or knows to be true does not make her any less of a woman. The definition you used is your own. That doesn't make it the correct definition. Your comparison of gender to race is like comparing horses to bananas. They are two completely separate things with no relationship, whatsoever, to one another.

[marlowe]

Originally Posted by SoWhatThenWhy

.... I think the reason some guys don't consider transgendered women "real" women is because they simply aren't. ..... the term "real" is used to describe the gender we were brought to this earth with. ..... why would you want to be considered a "real" woman anyway? .....

I don't think Bionca is anxious to be considered a "real" woman (at least not by the definition you make). Her objection concerns the use of the term "real women" in a context that differentiates from trans women and where the inference may be derogatory to trans women, suggesting that their "reality", their lives, are somehow less valid.

Here's some (partial) dictionary definition of "real" -
'actually existing, genuine, rightly so called, sincere, not merely apparent or supposed or pretended or artificial or hypocritical or affected'

Bionca and other trans women identify as women, live as women and wish to be accepted thus, and regardless of to what degree they choose to reveal their trans status, past life, or indeed genitalia, I'm sure they do not wish to have their existence perceived as any less "real" than anyone else's.

In this context the prejudice of differentiating as "real" and "not real" can, in extremis, lead to very real dangers as has been pointed out.

[Bionca]

Marlowe.. I couldn't have put it better

Ila ... you are completely correct about the race/trans* comparison

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by SoWhatThenWhy

I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular post, but I had to chime in. I think the reason some guys don't consider transgendered women "real" women is because they simply aren't. You may be a woman internally, but the term "real" is used to describe the gender we were brought to this earth with. It's like a person associating with a different race; no matter how much they feel they are that race inside, they'll never be.

On top of that, why would you want to be considered a "real" woman anyway? I think there's something special about being transgendered.

Meh, my two cents.

I do want to say that I agree. There is something special about being trans* and surely nothing wrong with being trans*. I'm perfectly happy being a transgendered woman - it's just another way of being a "real woman".

[SoWhatThenWhy]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I do want to say that I agree. There is something special about being trans* and surely nothing wrong with being trans*. I'm perfectly happy being a transgendered woman - it's just another way of being a "real woman".

Thanks. I meant nothing negative by my comments, and I can see Marlowe's view.

But Ila, in the context I used the comparison, it's apples to apples.

A person is born to their race = A person born to their gender.

Oh, by the way, you're an absolutely gorgeous woman Bionca.

[marlowe]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Marlowe.. I couldn't have put it better

Aw shucks ...... :D

really is the most satisfying smilie, thanks!

Best wishes.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by orion

...I, for example, dislike the term "Admirer" .. to me that conjures up a vision of a sad little man in a dirty raincoat, lurking furtively on the edges of the Transgendered scene ...

Amazing comment! Transsexual women often go through hell to achieve the status that I was lucky enough to be awarded through birth. The painful process they have to go through often leads to rejection by friends and family.

Now why on earth should only 'a sad little man in a dirty raincoat' admire such determination?

[smc]

Consider metaphysics, the study or theory of reality explored by Plato and Aristotle. Metaphysics is often used to describe, more narrowly, something called transcendent reality -- namely, the reality that lies beyond the physical world and is not, therefore, grasped by conventional means. In other words, metaphysics seeks to determine the nature of being and, as a philosophical exploration, is aimed at helping us discover the "true nature" of things. That, in turn, leads to an understanding of the ultimate reason for something's existence.

Plato, the great Greek philosopher, considered metaphysics. He believed in a transient reality. In essence, Plato saw two different levels of reality, and held that metaphysics is dualistic. To Plato, there were two different kind of things: physical and mental. There is what appears real and what is real. He saw two worlds: the being and the becoming.

Plato's answer to the basic metaphysical question of what reality is was that, fundamentally, reality is the form of things that are real, and not physical matter.

And what is the form? Plato originated this idea of Forms. He saw them as descriptions of essence. The Greek word also means epitome. So, two or more stones can both be said to be round if they participate in the Form roundness, and Plato held that the Form roundness exists separately from round things.

All this is to say that Bionca, or anyone else, is a girl -- and no less real a girl -- because she participates in the Form girlness. Not convinced? Read her posts, and those of the other thoughtful transgendered participants in the discussions here and in other threads. That is all the proof one needs.

[Soontobe]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I was in bed when he got that stupid awkward look on his face and said "wow you were really hot - but I like the real thing".

I think the part that stinks for me (and probably most Trans* folks) is me transitioning was me being 100% authentic - ultimately honest with myself and the world. When that honesty is called dishonest it hurts.

Its a shame there are so many people who are like that - for me its about who the person is. For instance I'm not attracted to guys - but I wouldn't say that I would never have a relationship with a guy, it depends on the individual. I haven't explained that very well, I guess it comes down to people being more open minded, not denying their feelings towards any given gender and not just putting people into categories based on physical appereance. End of rant.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Soontobe

Its a shame there are so many people who are like that - for me its about who the person is. For instance I'm not attracted to guys - but I wouldn't say that I would never have a relationship with a guy, it depends on the individual. I haven't explained that very well, I guess it comes down to people being more open minded, not denying their feelings towards any given gender and not just putting people into categories based on physical appereance. End of rant.

It could not have been put better, Soontobe:

"people being more open minded, not denying their feelings towards any given gender and not just putting people into categories based on physical appereance"

Wow, imagine the world with just this one type of denial overcome by even a tenth or a twentieth or a thousandth of all of us on the face of the earth!

[Bionca]

smc- interesting post. I generally agree. The only place I think this could expand is with "essence". That is, including the idea of identity or internal knowing.

When discussing people, it is often what is going on mentally/emotionally that proves more important than what is seen externally. A person could be, by all appearances, happy and content while internally conflicted and depressed. Or, a person can have a body of a boy, yet still process the world as a girl.

I like when discussions here take a turn for the cerebral.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Bionca

smc- interesting post. I generally agree. The only place I think this could expand is with "essence". That is, including the idea of identity or internal knowing.

When discussing people, it is often what is going on mentally/emotionally that proves more important than what is seen externally. A person could be, by all appearances, happy and content while internally conflicted and depressed. Or, a person can have a body of a boy, yet still process the world as a girl.

I like when discussions here take a turn for the cerebral.

Bionca, the operative words in what I wrote are "participating in the Form." The great thing about it all is that the Form has a universality that cannot be undone just because some idiot tells you you're not a girl, or all girl, or whatever the idiot thinks. You are so clearly participating in the form girlness, and that is what makes you a real girl. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[randolph]

SMC made an excellent post , discussing Plato’s view of metaphysics and the concept of “forms” or how transsexuals fit into the “essence” of girlness. Eckhard Tolle in his book “Awakening to your Life’s Purpose” expands on this concept of “forms” and how they relate to our ego centered identity.

I also would like to put in my two cents worth. Indian mysticism and especially the philosophy Tantric yoga has significance for transsexuals. In Tantric yoga there is a God “Siva” and a Goddess “Parvati”. Tantric adepts “worshipers” believe that Siva is inert until Parvati merges with him in sexual union. Parvati possesses the energy that enables Siva to create the universe. Some Tantric sects worship the transsexual aspect of this union and create statues representing this union as half male and half female, in other words transsexual.
Tantric philosophy reveals that the female energy of the Goddess is suppressed in males. In the male human, the ego actively suppresses the female spirit within, in order to maintain male ego dominance. This female energy can be activated and transcend the male ego by meditation and worshiping the Goddess (called kundalini in India). This energy rises from the base of the spine and can produces very powerful self awareness “enlightenment” if you will, with a feeling of bonding with the universe.
I suspect that male hostility directed toward transsexuals has something to do with the basic insecurity the male ego has toward females and especially toward males transcending into females. They know subconsciously that males are psychically inferior to females and their ego dominance is threatened. This is an extremely brief presentation of Tantric yoga and may not make much sense but I know from personal experience that it works. I am a straight male and Tantric yoga has made my relationship with women much easier. Sometime, I would like to know how well I could get along with a tgirl.

[randolph]

Transexual God showing the female side and the male side.

[mikelovesweed89]

Originally Posted by transjen

Happend to me awhile ago, A guy i met beat the crap outta me when he found out i wasn't a "real girl" When i tried to report it i got a rude awaking from the "real cop" when he found out i was transgendered he said it was my fault for teasing the poor guy and he had every right to smack me around and he hoped i learned my lesson and refused to file a report, Jennifer

thats messed up but don't worry he'll get his. paybacks a bitch

[Hui!]

Originally Posted by transjen

Happend to me awhile ago, A guy i met beat the crap outta me when he found out i wasn't a "real girl" When i tried to report it i got a rude awaking from the "real cop" when he found out i was transgendered he said it was my fault for teasing the poor guy and he had every right to smack me around and he hoped i learned my lesson and refused to file a report, Jennifer

First time I was with a shemale (about 15 yrs ago), it was a blind date surprise kind of thing. Went to dinner, went dancing, drinks, coffee and ice cream after. Get to her place and she turned the lights off, wouldn't take off the panties, no touchie me there. Came to the realization when she wouldn't let me touch her what would have been vagina. So, I just played along and fucked her anyways. Didn't bother me a bit. Looking back though, she should have been upfront with me. We both would have had better sex.

Next day my Dad asked how the "big" date went. (He watched me get ready) I told him the truth about the TGirl. He asked, "so what did you do when you found out?" I told him I shot my load in her ass. He laughed long and hard out loud and asked two questions: "how was it", and "did you wear a condom?" He was a good dad.

[orion]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

Now why on earth should only 'a sad little man in a dirty raincoat' admire such determination?

Hi GGadmirer ...

To answer your question .. it's not so much that only "sad little men in dirty rain coats" admire Transwomen .. Admiration & respect are open to everyone, if they so choose ..

The fact is that there are a large group of men who continue to perceive Transwomen as something "risky", "dangerous", "fun", "different" .. in other words a secret little fetish which they'd rather their families, work colleagues or friends didn't know they liked ..

They indulge their "little secret" on the quiet .. and then scuttle off home to the wife .. as if nothing had ever happened ..

These are the people who lack the moral conviction to admit (sometimes even to themselves) that they find Transwomen attractive .. so, they "lurk" on the fringes .. thus giving those of us who are perfectly open about what we like & don't like a bad name ..

A bad name that is, amongst Transwomen .. from my own personal experience, I've been told by T-Girls whom I've dated that once they'd got past the initial "Admirer" thing .. I was totally different from what they'd been expecting ..

As has been said in previous posts .. labels (of all kinds) can be pernicious, whether applied to Transwomen .. or to those of us who prefer their company & treat them as women and with the respect to which they're entitled, as people ..

Hence my dislike for the term "Admirer" .. I wish there were some practical way of separating the two ...

I happen to be one of the fortunate ones in that I'm in a loving, caring, stable relationship with my girlfriend, Jenny .. a vivacious, down-to-earth, very attractive Transwoman .. whom I happen to love very much and whose company I'm proud to be in ...

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by orion

Hence my dislike for the term "Admirer" .. I wish there were some practical way of separating the two ...

Mizzy B and I tried here at this forum to find other terms... unsuccesfully...

1. "Admirer" is a little bit too much like a kinky, ugly grease ball in the proverbial rain coat...

2. "Tranny-Chaser" sounds like a drink... "Can I have two Buds and a Tranny-Chaser on the side... make it a double, will ya. Be generous on the spunk...?"

3. "Tranny-lover" is also cheasy... a guy secretly jerking off to his fascination...

4. "Tranny-chaser"... he goes to Bangkok twice a year and keeps it hidden... but he makes little dots in his bed every time he beds a little tranny down...

My sweet Fey once called me a "shemale-collector" and a "shemale-protector", but I doubt that applies either...

So what is the term for us hideous, abnormal perverts?

I dunno - "a guy like me who likes a girl like her..." ? That's still the best, though, a highly user-unfriendly and impractical term...

H

[smc]

Hank writes,

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I dunno - "a guy like me who likes a girl like her..." ? That's still the best, though, a highly user-unfriendly and impractical term...H

This is hardly "user-unfriendly and impractical". Rather, it is almost perfect in that it avoids creating a label, and labels are -- as we can read throughout this forum -- the source of so much angst and asinine thought.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by smc

Hank writes,



This is hardly "user-unfriendly and impractical". Rather, it is almost perfect in that it avoids creating a label, and labels are -- as we can read throughout this forum -- the source of so much angst and asinine thought.

It's still impractical...

Question: "Hey Hank, are you gay or str8?"

Answer: "I'm a tranny-lover"

versus

Question: "Hey Hank, are you gay or str8?"

Answer: "I'm a guy like me who likes a girl like her..."

Question: "What is that?"

Answer: "My girlfriend is transsexual"

Question: "Oh, why didn't you say so to my first question...?"

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by smc

Hank writes,



This is hardly "user-unfriendly and impractical". Rather, it is almost perfect in that it avoids creating a label, and labels are -- as we can read throughout this forum -- the source of so much angst and asinine thought.

But I do agree totally with your point. I think that we're all more comfortable with labels, however, the fact that it is even almost impossible to find a describing label for "a guy like me who likes a girl like her" is thought-provoking... maybe we simply don't exist??? There are terms for so many things - but not for a tranny-lover...

You can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual... but where does that leave me?

The entire problem is, that the term "sexual" is misplaced. A homosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to her or his own sex... a transsexual is someone who identifies as her or his opposite gender. Nothing to do with sexual orientation here.

And it all comes down to the fact that transgenderism is minority and no need to take us seriously. We're just so much freaks that the hetero-laymen (or homo-laymen, for that matter) cannot even label us correctly...

:-)

[ila]

I don't see a need to give a label or a term to anybody. I am just me. Instead of agonizing or contemplating over what others may call you, call yourself what you want to be known as. I am a man and that's all that is required.

[smc]

Hank poses the following imaginary conversation to support that his phrase is "impractical":

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

Question: "Hey Hank, are you gay or str8?"

Answer: "I'm a guy like me who likes a girl like her..."

Question: "What is that?"

Answer: "My girlfriend is transsexual"

Question: "Oh, why didn't you say so to my first question...?"

How about this answer:

What difference does it make?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by smc

Hank poses the following imaginary conversation to support that his phrase is "impractical":



How about this answer:

What difference does it make?

That's basicly what I answer... but it still would be easier if guys like me who like girls like her could have a more prudent label...

[smc]

I'm sure you realize that I'm not really arguing with you. I just wish so much that we all would stop worrying about labels. The endless threads asking about being gay make me want to scream.

Of course, I blame seriously skewed social mores, and the fact that (especially in the United States) "morality" is about matters sexual and rarely about truly amoral things like poverty and war, rather than the individuals who keep posing these questions and fretting over how others will judge their sexual preferences.

[Bionca]

I like how this has turned into a discussion of labels as they apply to the cis* folks who date gals like me.

It is a mark of privilege to be able to say that labels don't matter. The reality is, to society at large, they DO matter. A cis* person does not have basic choices and aspects of their identity and life routinely questioned, discounted, and invalidated. A heterosexual person does not have their relationships routinely belittled and called perverted. A white person is not told that race is the most important part of who they are.

You can go on and believe that labels don't matter. The reality is, you will be labeled and probably incorrectly at that. Even amongst the Trans* community, you guys are labeled as "chasers" and "admirers" (at best) - neither of these are particularly flattering. Both of them apply to a large segment of guys who are attracted to trans* women.

Chaser - has a connotation of someone eternally looking to move on. Chasing one girl after another, never satisfied with who he has.

Admirer - Is passive, where Chaser is active. A guy who lurks in the shadows, has dirty secrets and then slinks back to his life with no investment (other than economic) and no ties.

These are the roles set for you guys to work with. You can either be comfortable with them, work against them, or come up with something else. The benefit of having a label, a name, an identity is to claim the ability to self-definition. Self-determination is the first step to liberation for all of us.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm sure you realize that I'm not really arguing with you. I just wish so much that we all would stop worrying about labels. The endless threads asking about being gay make me want to scream.

For various reasons I hate those questions too. I'll bet for different reasons than the majority here. Labeling won't go away - which is why I think you all should suss out a name for what you are, if the existing ones don't work. Or embrace them if they do. While working for a society that abandons the need sort people out into easy to digest groups.

[smc]

Bionca is absolutely correct when she writes, "It is a mark of privilege to be able to say that labels don't matter." So, I want to clarify: it's not that I think they do not matter -- obviously, if we are to live in a society in which we are all labeled, it is something with which we must constantly deal -- but that I long for the time when the will not matter. Getting there is most likely a process that involves a combination of finding the "correct" or "best" label that frees us from the stigmas associated with ones previously used, and vigilantly speaking out against labeling.

It is abhorrent that anyone should "have basic choices and aspects of their identity and life routinely questioned, discounted, and invalidated," as Bionca writes. It is true that people "will be labeled and probably incorrectly at that." I am just suggesting some ways to deal with this by those of us who, as Bionca so correctly notes, are not as often victimized by such actions.

Vigilance demands that we never fail to notice when it is happening and take every opportunity to speak out against it.

Last night, I watched the film "Milk." I was struck by Harvey Milk's strategy for building opposition to the anti-gay Proposition 6 in California back in 1978. He encouraged every gay man and lesbian in the state to come out to their friends, families, neighbors, work colleagues, etc. His argument was that once everyone realized that they knew someone who would be victimized by the passage of the proposition, it would turn a lot of minds away from voting yes. That same concept informs my approach to dismissing labels.

So, while at the same time we must live with them, and their is value in finding "better" ones, I strongly encourage everyone to take the most simple approach -- whenever possible -- and simply refuse to be labeled, in whatever way one can. Both are part of the "self-determination" that Bionca so aptly identifies as "the first step to liberation for all of us."

[transjen]

Labels labels labels all these labels and the reason is as human's we need to put everything into neat tidy little groups and truth be told it can't be done but we try anyway Jennifer

[racquel]

I guess sometimes you have to use labels. I'd certainly rather be just referred to in standard feminine terms. But I really don't mind "girl like you" or "pre-op" or just about anything. The only thing that really bothers me is being referred to as "gurl" online. That's such a fucked up word. Are people trying to combine "girl" and "guy"? And cranky lesbians who act like I'm a drag queen annoy me.

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

My sweet Fey once called me a "shemale-collector" and a "shemale-protector", but I doubt that applies either...

Shemale protector? Is that some kind of heavy-duty version of the Reality condom that's made for anal?

[MikeyNice]

Things evolve over time and work themselves out. Labels are necessary I think. I could be completely wrong here, but there seems to be an explosion of passable TS girls lately. More and more men are admitting that they like this and over time there might be as many TG people as there are gay people. As science figures out the brain and we get better hormones, people will learn too. What I'm saying is that even though there have been TG people all throughout history, it is now becomming practical, more understood and more common. Give people who have not had the experiences you've had a little time. People are not as arrogant as much as they might seem. Be less sensitive and understand that not everyone can be in the same state of mind as everyone else at the same time. Everyone even has a couple different of our own moods a day. To each their own right?

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by ila

I don't see a need to give a label or a term to anybody. I am just me. Instead of agonizing or contemplating over what others may call you, call yourself what you want to be known as. I am a man and that's all that is required.

My thoughts exactly, let's keep it nice and simple.... there is such a thing as over-analysis! Makes for very interesting forum discussion though :-)

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by racquel

I guess sometimes you have to use labels. I'd certainly rather be just referred to in standard feminine terms. But I really don't mind "girl like you" or "pre-op" or just about anything. The only thing that really bothers me is being referred to as "gurl" online. That's such a fucked up word. Are people trying to combine "girl" and "guy"? And cranky lesbians who act like I'm a drag queen annoy me.




Shemale protector? Is that some kind of heavy-duty version of the Reality condom that's made for anal?

Ouch... ;-) Considering my nasty history of BBing I don't think so... :D

Nooo, Fey got slightly political... the way I like my women ;-)

I don't mind labels at all - actually it's kinda interesting. In branding and identity-design where I have by daily capacity, we SEARCH for labels to simplify and enhance communication. The fact is that whether we like it or not, we all get assigned an identity - and if we don't attempt to control the labelling (aka branding) then the market will control it - and most often NOT to our benefit. Companies, organisations, people, sexualities, politics... it's human nature to label and to identify aspects in ways so that they can relate to it more easily.

Nothing bad about that unless the labelling is based on ignorance, which it most often is in regards to trans-life from cis*folks.

The labelling must come from us!

H

[caderevjak]

that cop and jerk need a little lesson in manners

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by SoWhatThenWhy

On top of that, why would you want to be considered a "real" woman anyway? I think there's something special about being transgendered.

Meh, my two cents.

This is a beautifully provocative statement that I will follow totally!

I think you are SO RIGHT!

Unless we start dealing with the cromosomes, which can get sorta messy, then this is the case!

A trans*woman is NOT judged by her cromosomes but by her ability to LIVE her femininity through her mind and given body.

And aint nothing very grander than that!

H

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by racquel

The only thing that really bothers me is being referred to as "gurl" online. That's such a fucked up word. Are people trying to combine "girl" and "guy"?

No racquel that is merely just illiteracy trying to be hip. Obviously the regular spelling of "girl" is too blah so they had to spice it up a bit.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

No racquel that is merely just illiteracy trying to be hip. Obviously the regular spelling of "girl" is too blah so they had to spice it up a bit.

Haha... must be an acute case of misspelling :-) a chick is a chick, a guy is a guy and, surely, a girl is a girl... and, grrr, Mizzy R is certainly a girrrl... just 12.000 kms much too far away...

[puck]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Pretending that I hadn't read Jen's reply above - no I wouldn't have added anything. The reason for the assult was the same - she was perceived by her attacker as not being a "real" woman at best, an intentional deceiver at worst. The reaction of the cop implying that he assumed she was being deceptive, thus bringing the violence on herself. This line of reasoning is caled the "gay/trans panic" defence and is quite popular because it works to get men (who have often had continued relations with trans*women) off the hook or reduced sentences for violence/murder of trans*women and gay men (see Angie Zapata and Matthew Shepherd).

I know you aren't tryng to say that violence is justified, but so often people - even other trans*folks will assume that a gal wasn't being honest about her status, denounce the violence, then say she kinda had it comming anyway. I wonder what the public's reaction would be if women started beating the snot out of men who lied about their cock size...

Bionca,
I'm not sure that is the same thing (cock size). If a woman is out with a guy, she believes he HAS a cock, and when a guy is out with a woman, he believes she DOES NOT HAVE A COCK, and when he finds out, he is going to feel he has been mislead (at the very least), and not be very pleasant about it. Some people are going to BE violent because the world teaches us that that is the response we should have when we are decieved.
If you bought a corvette and they drove out a ford after you signed the papers, you'd be mad too. I understand the problem, but the guy who doesn't know that the "real" woman is not, is simply not going to go with the program. That is simply asking too much of human nature.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by puck

If a woman is out with a guy, she believes he HAS a cock, and when a guy is out with a woman, he believes she DOES NOT HAVE A COCK...

???

When I date a woman I most certainly expect her to have a cock. But I wouldn't beat her up if she didn't.

H

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by puck

Bionca,
I'm not sure that is the same thing (cock size). If a woman is out with a guy, she believes he HAS a cock, and when a guy is out with a woman, he believes she DOES NOT HAVE A COCK, and when he finds out, he is going to feel he has been mislead (at the very least), and not be very pleasant about it. Some people are going to BE violent because the world teaches us that that is the response we should have when we are decieved.
If you bought a corvette and they drove out a ford after you signed the papers, you'd be mad too. I understand the problem, but the guy who doesn't know that the "real" woman is not, is simply not going to go with the program. That is simply asking too much of human nature.

Interesting you would assume that a trans* woman who is murdered is being deceptive. That a man is somehow justified in murder in this case. That the reasoning for that justification is "boys will be boys".

I am 100% honest with the guys I date (so was Angie). I have have been assaulted by those guys. Next time I date a guy with the same level of reasoning and respect as you have shown I should be justified in at the very least beating the shit out of him for being deceptive.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Interesting you would assume that a trans* woman who is murdered is being deceptive. That a man is somehow justified in murder in this case. That the reasoning for that justification is "boys will be boys".

I am 100% honest with the guys I date (so was Angie). I have have been assaulted by those guys. Next time I date a guy with the same level of reasoning and respect as you have shown I should be justified in at the very least beating the shit out of him for being deceptive.

Well said, Mizzy B!

The guys who try to reason these kinds of ridiculous excuses are just totally off the mark.

But the whole problem again is the lack of respect for transsexuality. We're all freaks in the hearts and minds of the right-thinkers, and we have it coming...

As trans*people or guys who like girls like you we are SUPPOSED to wear a ribbon saying... "Honey bunny, I have a dick..."

Surely, if a trans*girl does NOT come out telling her story, she may expect some sort of reaction, if she operates within the normal cisgender facilities, as people simply don't expect trans*women. But NOBODY should beat her up for being herself and for being gorgeous and for being herself.

In the end nobody should have to...

This is a sad hetero world...

H

[breen]

im new to all this but my opinion which is probably wrong is.. why does a girl have to have a pussy.. a TS girl should be respected it takes a lot to put up with the shit they take... id be honered and proud to hace a TS girl on my arm

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by breen

im new to all this but my opinion which is probably wrong is.. why does a girl have to have a pussy.. a TS girl should be respected it takes a lot to put up with the shit they take... id be honered and proud to hace a TS girl on my arm

Well, WELCOME to the club, my man! If this is your line of thinking you and I will be great friends!

You're completely right!

H

[breen]

thanks for that H.. much appreciated... its a confused world out there and im part of it...

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by breen

thanks for that H.. much appreciated... its a confused world out there and im part of it...

Don't be confused at all, my man, just know what you believe in! And supporting transsexuality any which way one can is a pretty good belief and a rather good way.

The confusement comes, when we forget our core values - such as basic respect for humans with different views than us (this excludes Republicans, of course... kiiiddiiing...).

If you can find space in your heart to encompass the poetic and real beauty of transsexuality, then you are, indeed, further than most of your fellow men, friend!

May I ask, do you have a transsexual girlfriend?

H

[puck]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Interesting you would assume that a trans* woman who is murdered is being deceptive. That a man is somehow justified in murder in this case. That the reasoning for that justification is "boys will be boys".

I am 100% honest with the guys I date (so was Angie). I have have been assaulted by those guys. Next time I date a guy with the same level of reasoning and respect as you have shown I should be justified in at the very least beating the shit out of him for being deceptive.

Bionca,
I did not say that I condoned violcence. I did say that it is the LIKELY outcome when someone feels/is deceived. You may be "up front" (pun intended) with your dates, but you cannot make that declaration for all TG's.
A few weeks ago, there was a lot of to-do over the woman from Scotland who won the singing talent contest because her "looks" didn't match her voice. A bunch of psychologists weighed in to remind us that yes, we are victims of, and make judgements based on, first impressions. Those impressions are usually true. If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy. That last thing he's going to say is " is that a flashlight under your skirt or are you just happy to see me?"
You surely must realize that until TG's have the necessary surgery, the number of available men for any relationship-never mind long term-- is going to miniscule, and even then, it will be an uphill battle all the way. If it's the perfect cover for a gay relationship, it may work, but that has to be up-front as well. The way you feel in your mind (about being woman trapped in a man's body) does not alter the fact that you were born a male and that based on that, another male is going to have great difficulty with a relationship even if he sees you outwardly as a female. In his mind, he may see you as a guy (in drag) and therefore that puts him in a different sex-choice category. I hope that I've expained my meaning without insult. I've read some of your posts and I know you know the difference between the "guys with fantasies" and the reality. It is not as Eddy Murphy said "once you tried a guy with no legs, you can never go back".

[smc]

The problem with what Puck writes begins with the two words in this sentence that I have highlighted in boldface: "If a guy sees a person with a skirt, nice looks, long hair, he's going to ASSUME that that person is a woman with the appropriate anatomy."

Puck's premise is that the absence of this "appropriate anatomy" is the root of a "deception" -- a word based on an active verb, deceit. And what is the action? It is the willful effort to convince someone to believe that which is not true.

I contend that Puck's entire premise is wrong. Let's make this more concrete and abstract -- and please excuse me, Bionca, for including you in this exercise but since you have posted so eloquently I am hopeful it will be okay. Here goes: Do you, Puck, contend that Bionca (for example) is not truly a woman? Do you contend that when she self-identifies as a woman she is untruthful? If the answer is yes to either of these questions, then I ask what gives Puck (or anyone, for that matter) the right to make that determination for Bionca. Who are any of us to decide for any transgendered person what is the "appropriate anatomy"?

A premise such as Puck's is not only wrong, but it contributes to the violence in a rather insidious (or perhaps not so subtle) way. Not only does it dehumanize the victim (by creating a category that seems other than "normal" -- in this case, missing the "appropriate anatomy"), but it is a rationalization of the violence itself. Since words can be as violent as fists, as a rationalization it becomes a form of the violence.

Until we stop giving any aid and comfort to the attackers of transgendered people, even in the form of explanations such as the one Puck offers, we are complicit. Rationalizing an attacker's behavior -- even if we ourselves would never throw the punch -- must stop!