(Input/Output) 2 (CB)

I really do think that despite all the raw nerves, it is possible to discuss "serious issues" if it is done with patience. Yes, people may snap, but I think that it's ok to snap. The trick is to snap, catch your breath, then come back and explain yourself or express yourself in a way that people will be more open to listening to (reading). You can edit the original snap, clarify it, or anything else you need to do. Everyone has opinions, and if we don't voice them, we lose out. If I disagree with you, we can either agree to disagree, or attempt to support our beliefs in hopes of "enlightening" the other person. If we simply stay silent, or storm off the board the minute someone snaps, everyone else loses the benefit of our perspective, and we lose the benefit of expression. If someone reacts negatively to what you say, try explaining yourself. It that doesn't work, just apologize for hurting the person's feelings, if you're sorry that you did, and carry on. You might also call the person on being defensive... if the eggshells allow for it.

There's nothing wrong with stating what you know, even if it differs from other people's opinions. If you believe in something, you believe in it. If we don't know what it is that you believe in, we don't know how to communicate with you without possibly offending you. Sometimes a comment made in jest does not necessarily reflect the attitude or belief of the jester. So, if, for example, I make a joke about Christians, it doesn't necessarily mean that I think all Christians are a joke, and hence think that you're a joke... BUT... if I know that it is a touchy issue for you, I might not make the joke and find another way to express myself. Until you allow people to get to know you, you can't blame them too much for hitting a nerve. Not that you shouldn't express yourself when a nerve is hit, but once you've calmed down, it might be a good thing to keep in mind.

I agree with the brick wall comment... there's a lot that I feel that way about, but for some odd reason (maybe I'm a masochist?) I keep doing it. You may think that it's easier for people if you stay silent, but maybe you should do what's best for yourself in this. If you try, at least you can say that you tried. To reach one person might be worth a few bumps on the head.

It's a tough call for me. On the one hand, it is my board, but on the other, it's my responsibility to make it a place that is comfortable for everyone. As for saying things 12 times... well, honestly CB, you're not the only member on the board. Just because you heard it 12 times doesn't mean everyone has. Some people might not have heard it at all, and with something I feel is that important, I tend to prefer that everyone I have to deal with has heard it. Call me selfish, but with some issues in my life, not saying anything is not something I can do and still maintain a shred of respect for myself. You might not ever be able to relate to my experiences, but that doesn't mean that you won't get anything out of hearing about them... and if nothing else, I should think that a person who calls themself my friend would be interested in the things which might affect me, simply because they do.

You have to do what you need to do for yourself, but... I think that one of the things that led up to your being banned and your being offended was that you don't allow people to get to know you, and so your words and actions are easily misinterpreted as attacks, and we don't know how to avoid pissing you off in the first place.

Yes, you do show up to support people, but... if people don't know you, why do you think that your words will reassure them? If you don't open up to people, they'll never feel safe opening up to you, and your words will seem empty. Most people need to feel that a person cares, and if the person does not open up it is often interpreted as not caring enough to trust. It's one of those "actions speak louder than words" types of things.

CB, you CAN write or say whatever you want, but so can other people. If someone jumps at you for a comment you make, that's their right... and it's your right to clarify that comment if you feel they misunderstood you. If who you are really is an unfriendly person, that's fine, but then be ok with that. If you're ok with that, then it shouldn't bother you when someone accuses you of being unfriendly.

At least your trying to pay attention to it, CB. A scene-stealing, psy-vamping, glory-hogging thread crash makes me nuts... but it's a lot worse when the person who posted it doesn't even care that they might be doing it. If we can all start picking up some of the eggshells in here, it might happen that eventually it can be pointed out without risking losing a member/friend.

As for this, "I have learned more, grown more, been exposed to more, from this board alone, than just about any other thing since I left college. This board is one of the most challenging and thought provoking atmospheres I've ever seen." It makes me very happy that you have had that experience, and I'm glad if I had anything to do with it. I'm glad that you respect my opinion, and that what I think of you does matter. It does matter what you think of me as well, but I do have to say... if I knew more of your opinions, it might be easier for me to able to respect them.

I walk on eggshells with a lot of people. I hope to stop doing that... but I think I have to take it one person at a time.

(Input/Output) 1

"Not real" is not what (this/my board) is all about... not what I wanted (this/my board) to be about. I wanted (this/my board) to be about people... to be a place online that people could be seen and respected as real people. This is not an RP board, although RPers are welcome OOC. As well, if I really wanted to have a conversation with a book, I'd read a book. All topics here, serious, intellectual, and otherwise, are between people. I wanted this board to be a place where people realized that behind all the words on the screen, real people were typing them.

(How would I like to be addressed?)

"Follows", "Ravens", "Follows Ravens", or FR will do online or off from people I know. With strangers, I'd prefer they use "Follows Ravens" because of the whole formality = respect thing... and in print, PLEASE don't ignore the "s" on either word, or use an "e" instead of an "o". Barring typo, it's annoying when people mutilate my name.

I DO NOT like my legal name used online. It's rare that I even use it in e-mails.

Offline, my legal name, or it's shortened form are both fine. I can deal with Mr., but get my name right if you use it. I'd rather have someone not call me anything at all than to completely destroy my name. If you don't know my name, "Sir" is preferable to "Mister", but I'm not too particular on that.

(Living your last day...)

I too live each day as if it is my last....

I waited for a while on this one... don't really know why... but maybe because I'm pretty suicidal already.

I guess that in order to give an honest answer to this one, I just have to look back to 9/11.


I'd send out an e-mail telling people that I loved them and I'd also call people that were the closest to me to say the same. If I thought any one of those people wouldn't receive the e-mail, or was not home to receive the call, I'd attempt to call them or contact a mutual friend in order to relay the message... as long as I got to (directly or indirectly) tell them that I loved them before it was all over, it'd be fine.

I'd then go to my best friend, L.'s house.

Then I'd call "RavensWings", tell her that I loved her, spend as much time as I could on the phone with her, and wait for the next plane to hit.


*shrugs*

That's what I did (although I lived at L.'s house already)... so, I suppose that it's honest.

DragonCon (A rant) - (explaining further)

I really don't have a problem with feeling "insecure", I don't think. It's tough to explain. "Insecure" would mean that I'm not sure of myself or fear judgment, or something like that, I think. It's probably more some form of intolerance, in my case. As much as I tend to "wig out" online, when I actually do "wig out" offline, it can be pretty dangerous... more so to myself than to anyone else, but it has happened that I've gone over the edge and hurt people. I just know my limitations, and I do my best to stay within them... but the more people I have to deal with, the less able I am to do that.

I'd get into the whole MPD explanation about what goes on, but actually... I did that before, and it was a waste of time. (yes, there is some bitterness here) The reality is that it's not up to other people to cater to my "disorder", it's up to me to stay away from people, because time and time again it proves to be the only solution. There's too much at risk, not the least of which is my life. It sucks, but no matter how much I want to go this year, last year made a pretty big point to me. I can't go unless I can afford to... and that means having enough money to provide myself a "safe" environment.

(Actually, I did the calculations. If I was to attend DragonCon, I'd need (at this point in my life), about $2000. I just don't have that sort of money.)

DragonCon (A rant)

If you asked me on September 9th, 2001 whether or not I'd be at next year's DragonCon, I would've had to stifle the urge to laugh in your face. ("your" in general, not specific) Out of all the trips I've taken in my life, I'd have to rank last year's DragonCon as one of the WORST. But for a few exceptions, my entire stay in GA was completely HELLISH.

I don't know that I want to go into the details of why, really. The long and short of it is that I am not able to be in social settings, and the older I get, the worse it gets. At this point, with very little exception, I can't handle the company of more than 3 or 4 people at once without meds. Last year's DragonCon helped me to realize that a bit more. I simply need my space, and the only people I can tolerate in it are people that I am intimate with. Last year I felt violated, disrespected, smothered, insulted, and all around pissed off.

There was SO much that I wanted/needed to discuss after that trip... but, unfortunately, by the time I woke up from recuperating from my train ride home, some idiots decided to fly a few planes into a few buildings and completely fuck with the state of the world... and hence, my (and everyone else's) life.

Between the 9/11 mess, my fucked up living situation, my declining mental health, and the fact that I didn't get to resolve anything from DragonCon... well... you saw what happened to (my board/online community).

So... now DragonCon 2002 is around the corner... and because that's the way the human mind works... I'm actually feeling bad about the fact that I can't afford to go this year. Pretty twisted, huh. I don't know why I feel like I wish I could go, maybe it's like what I used to do with PTD... keep going back for more with the hope that things will, someday, be perfect.

The problem is... wherever you go, there you are. It's not that the event wasn't perfect, it's that I'm not perfect. No matter where I go, these issues arise. I'm intolerant, oversensitive, paranoid, antisocial, and damnit... I have an illness. It's odd how if you have a broken toe people go easy on you, but if your brain is broken you're either shunned, discriminated against, or simply disbelieved.

So... what do I do? Do I stay in my apartment for the rest of my life? I can't expect the world to compensate for my disability, can I? Shit, I can't even expect people to believe that I have one, let alone take it into consideration. *sighs*

I do wish that I'd hit the lottery. If I did, I'd get a room and be there... and I'd attempt to learn from last time... and maybe... I'd have some fun... and maybe I wouldn't. It's all about money though, as usual... and all about my damn disability, as usual. If it wasn't for the fact that I have the damn disability in the first place, I could afford to go. "Afford" it financially, and "afford" it mentally.

(The Stranger In My Pants...)

N., I think that I could spend hours replying to what you wrote (about the cover article - Creative Loafing Vol. 30 No. 6). My thoughts are very similar, if not identical, about most of the issues. I really did try to read the article with an open mind. I tried to stop myself from ripping it to shreds and tried to keep telling myself that articles like this are necessary right now, but like you... I wish that they weren't. I wish that everyone just didn't even think about it... that there was no such thing as "Transsexual" or "Transgender" or "Intersexed" or any other label like that... that people were simply seen as people, and what a person has in their pants or chooses to wear is not worthy of a tv show or newspaper article.

Over the past week or so, I've participated in a discussion on Rape and Hate Crimes, happened to catch The Brandon Teena story on tv, and also stumbled onto an episode of American Justice Files which focused on Hate crimes and spent some time on the Matthew Shepard murder. In my world, even if I was "normal", I'd be constantly surrounded by these issues.

On this (my) board, I've heard members complain about the constant discussion about these issues. Yes, I know that it's my board, and that I can talk about anything I want, and etc. etc., but I often forget the real reason behind why I'm constantly "deconstructing" everything people post when it comes to sex and gender. There was a clip of Kate Bornstien in the Brandon Teena movie that reminded me why, yesterday. The trial was going on, I think it was Lotter's, and the Menace was there in full force. Kate had just come out of the court room, and was in tears. The locals were up in arms about the fact that there were activists present, and thought the whole thing was a load of horse shit.

Kate said that she moved to San Fran, and then Seattle to escape the hate and live in an environment that was safer. Seeing the trial, and the anti-gay/trans protesters brought it all back to her... why it was necessary to keep talking, and to keep supporting... to stay "active". After a while, when you're in a safer, more understanding environment, you forget what the rest of the world is actually like.


There is a good reason for articles like this one... the most important reason for it is simply... because articles like this one can still exist and sell soap. I only wish that the article was printed in bumfuck, Iowa or something. True, Atlanta still needs them, but Atlanta is about the safest space in the South. Maybe one day I'll see one that was printed in some small town in Nebraska.

Maybe one day (anything is possible), all these issues will be "old fashioned" and the kids will laugh at how closed minded their folks were when they stumble across old copies of articles like this.

One can hope.

(Your worst quality/ your best quality...)

My worst quality? Hmmmm.... I've got a lot of bad ones, but I'd have to say... Ranting(?). I'm not sure what you call it, but it's tough to get a word in edgewise if I'm going on about something. Not that what I'm saying is worthless, but getting a chance to actually say what you're thinking while I'm talking isn't easy. I know that I do it. I HATE that I do it. I'm working on not doing it.

My strongest? I'm not sure. I seem to be able to help people out a lot when they're having a crisis. Maybe, being insightful?

Definitions

These are my definitions for the following words, at the moment:

Were - An evolved human

Man - A human who calls himself a man

Woman - A human who calls herself a woman

Intersexed - A human who has physical characteristics that are considered to be both stereotypically male and stereotypically female.

Transgendered - A human whose legal or assigned sex does not match their gender expression in the eyes of their society.

Transsexual - A human who has changed their mind about which sex they are.

Transvestite - A human who derives pleasure from wearing clothing stereotypically only appropriate for those whose legal sex is other than their own.

Blood Fetishist - A human who derives sexual or sensual pleasure from human blood.

Vampire - An evolved human who derives energy from the consumption of human blood.

Human - Evolved Primate


(As I grow and learn, my definitions change a bit.)

(NOT a Hate Crime? - To wrap it up...)

There are a lot of issues surrounding this that concern me. It's not just the hate crime debate and the definition of rape, but also the issue of the oppression of women, and legally defining just what a woman is in the first place. The way I see it, there are thousands of women who cannot be raped because the law refuses to recognize them as such, and thousands of men who could experience a "sexual assault" identical to that which a woman who is raped experiences, but it's not rape because the law refuses to admit that it's possible to rape a man. It's my usual "body parts don't make the man/woman" rant. I've just started so many topics (on my board) on it that I'm loathe to start yet another. After a while I get tired of seeing my own name over and over again, and a couple of people have voiced their annoyance about my choice of subject matter in the past, so I try to contain myself.

(NOT a Hate Crime? - According to the laws in some States...)

Apparently, if society deems you to be a man, you cannot be raped. Only people who society has declared to be women can be raped, and it's only rape if the man, is not her husband, is over the age of 14, puts his dick into the woman and actually cums.


How delightful! Scratch everything I said, and by all means, add all the cases of actual rape to the hate crime tally... but I'd get in touch with the millions of people whose lives were ruined by not being raped... they keep saying they were raped! How horrible of them!

I'm now completely disgusted.

(NOT a Hate Crime? - it was a long one)

I don't know that I'm opposed to a view, but more so, a practice. In so far as the law is concerned, no matter what views I hold, I balk at suggesting that anything should be gender specific. Basically, I will not support a law that will not serve to protect me, and could in fact do me harm. Whether or not I believe rape further oppresses women in this society is beside the point... on the books, rape should be rape, no matter the sex or gender of the victim. Calling rape "sexual assault" is (in my opinion) detestable. Rape is (almost) never about sex, and calling it "sexual assault" completely softens the blow of one of the most deplorable crimes on the record.

At the heart of this, I thought, is whether or not it makes sense that rape be called a hate crime against women. I do not think that it should be called a hate crime in and of itself, anymore than I think that all murders or assaults should be called hate crimes. The "hate crime" part is seperate from the actual rape. Not all rapes are hate crimes against women, so counting them as such would be inaccurate.

Of course, crimes against women further oppress women! If a woman is mugged, that would be the same thing, right? Not all muggings happen to women though, and so we can't automatically dub muggings as hate crimes. It may be necessary to pass (at least temporary) laws that protect minorities and serve to change the societal climate, but I think that this needs to be done with care. Sweeping generalizations like "a man can't be raped" don't belong in the legal system. I'm not against charging people with a "hate crime" along with charging them with the already established crime that's on the books, I just don't think that we should define something like "rape" as gender specific. If a (person who calls herself or is identified as being a) woman is raped, I think that the rapist should be charged with and punished for committing both rape and for committing an act which adds to the oppression of women... as two seperate crimes not just the rape. Rape does not in and of itself oppress women, because not only women are raped, and not only non-women rape.

It's possible that I am simply uneducated in the actual definition of the word "rape" according to the law, and as well, the particulars about "hate crimes" and how they are applied to criminals, but I don't think that I've been unclear in my response to this voiced opinion. If I was, allow me to try to sum up my viewpoint...

Should they have counted the number of rapes (in with the "hate crime" statistics)? NO.
Should they have included (some of the raped) women? YES.

Rape is always a hate crime? NO
Women are oppressed minorities? YES


(to clarify: I don't think that women are technically a minority, if we're talking about numbers... but none the less.... in my opinion, they are an oppressed group.)

(NOT a Hate Crime? - and continutes)

I'm not too up on the law... I'm not sure how "rape" is defined (I thought that it meant "rape", but from what you say... I guess that I may well be uninformed)... but I didn't think that it applied only to a case of a woman being sexually assaulted by a man. If that is the case, then I suppose that it should have been counted in with the hate crime tally... but if that is the way it's seen.... I suppose that I'm just damn uneducated... and I do NOT like this education one bit.

Then... there's not much I do like.


(quick rant/outburst:) My bad. Only people with XX chromosomes, no penis, who like to wear dresses, and who have vaginas at birth can be raped. Everyone else is just horribly confused and should get out of therapy immediately.


*sighs*

(NOT a Hate Crime? - continues)

If the law declares that "rape" is a hate crime against women, then the law has the power to determine who is a woman. If a non-op MtF is "sexually assaulted", is it rape? How about an Intersexed person? An FtM? How about just a guy in a wig?

What if a woman "sexually assaults" another woman? Does that count as contributing to the oppression? Maybe she was acting under the influence of men. What if a pre or non-op MtF does? Is she suddenly back to being considered a "he" because of her parts?

All of a sudden, only men are capable of raping someone?

What was the definition of "man" again?

It just makes more sense to me, when dealing with issues involving law, to apply all things to all people. Maybe that's because I view myself as "Intersexed", maybe it's because I'm an idealist, and maybe it's just because I'm just plain wrong. I don't know. I do know though, that if all rapes were counted in the "Hate Crime" statistics, the statistics would be more off than they already are, and that if the law says that only women are raped, it may well be time for me to completely re-immerse myself in the Gender Minority community in order to work to get people/the government to wake the fuck up.


It's difficult for me to know where I stand on things a lot of the time. I do tend to be an idealist... and because I'm a bit different from the norm, I tend to think more about me and people like me than I do the majority.

"If a man rapes a man in prison, was his motive hatred of men as a class, or violence directed exclusively toward an individual?"

My opinion - Does it really matter? To me, it doesn't. Rape is rape, no matter what the motive.

"Members of the oppressed class have a higher probability of encountering violence than members of the dominant class. So how as a society do we compensate for that increased risk?"

Education, and laws which reinforce that education... but the laws should punish oppressors aside from their other violent crimes, not alter the definition of the crime itself. If it were illegal to violently oppress women, and it was determined that raping a woman was considered a form of oppression along with being a violent act if the victim is a woman, then that person could be charged with both rape and the oppression of women. (Good luck proving either one in a court of law, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

"Murdering police officers generally warrants a more extreme penalty than murdering a civilian. What is the motivation for this law? Higher risk, higher penalty to balance that risk?"

I disagree with the penalty being more extreme for crimes committed against policemen. The fact that this is the case actually infuriates me.

"Does hate crime legislation over time facilitate a reversal in class oppression?"

I really don't know.

(More on the "Hate Crime" aspect of it.)

I think that the problem is not that people refuse to dub rape a hate crime, but that people refuse to state that women are oppressed.

If "hate crime" = violent oppression, then when someone rapes a woman, they should be tried for both the rape, AND the hate crime. Rape, in and of itself, is NOT the oppression of women, even though in most cases it contributes to, or is a form of, the oppression of women. There's no way that I'll ever believe that a person who rapes a woman should get a different sentence than someone who rapes someone who is not a woman. Rape is Rape. HOWEVER, I cannot say that I do not believe that violent oppression should go unpunished.

So... no, I don't think that rape should be automatically considered a hate crime, but yes, I think that if someone rapes a woman they should be held accountable for both the rape and for contributing to the oppression of women (not to mention contributing to the bad reputation of men, if the rapist is a man). If rape is dubbed a crime against women, then anytime a person who is not a woman is raped, you cannot charge their attacker with rape, because it doesn't contribute to the oppression of women. What then, do you charge them with? Assault? I'm not ok with that. To me, rape is rape. Period. Oppression is not ok, and should be dealt with, but I don't think that redefining "rape" in the eyes of the law is the way to go.

Thought Police? (the hate crime issue continues)

...when a man gets raped (for example, in jail), is it a hate crime against all men?

I think that "violent" sort of means "hateful towards people". Rape is a violent crime, and therefor a "hate crime" against human beings. As such, all violent crime could be called "hate crime".

I'm not too sure where I stand on the whole "hate crime" thing. Whether or not the person is Gay, or Black, or Female, (etc.), the punishment should be the same if they are attacked as it would be if they weren't Gay, or Black, or Female, (etc.). I think that in this country, we have the right to hate. It may not be morally right (in many people's books) to discriminate on the basis of skin color, sexual preference, etc., but you can't punish people for thinking or feeling things that the majority does not agree with. In this country, it's not illegal to have a minority opinion (thank the Gods) even though it's illegal to express those opinions in a violent fashion (because of the violent part, not the opinion part).

I don't think that a person should get punished more severely because of their personal beliefs. The penalty should be for the crime, not the belief/moral behind the crime. Rape is rape. Assault is assault. Murder is Murder. I don't care what the reasons are behind these crimes (these crimes are not crimes committed in "self defense" by their definition), they are horrible, violent crimes and should have severe repercussions, no matter who the victim was.

It makes me a bit nervous when my government tells me (or others) how to think. It's a practice that can lead to a rather uncomfortable (oppressive) living situation.

(Urban Agility)

I'm still stuck in the burbs, and I'm about ready to implode.

I don't know how, or even if I'll ever be able to get back to my city. I'm just trying not to give up hope completely.

(NOT a Hate Crime?)

It's too early, and I'm still trying to shake off my meds... so... I'll keep this short.

By my definition, rape is not always a hate crime against women. It's only a hate crime when it is committed by someone who hates all women. It's the same thing if a guy beats the hell out of another guy, and later it turns out that the guy who got beat up is gay. The crime was committed, but because the guy doing the beating had no clue that the other guy was gay, it doesn't classify as a "hate crime". (Although in today's justice system I'm sure that the lawyer would try to use it.)


Perhaps, in the case of a serial rapist, it could be seen as a hate crime. Most rapes are committed by people who know the women they rape though. It's not a vendetta against all women, it an issue with a specific woman or type of woman. The person is usually not committing the rape only because of the fact that the victim is a woman. If it were the case that any woman would do, the attacker could go home to their own mother.


Rape is a violent crime... and the people who get raped vary. Men, women, children, and even wonderful freakydinks like me get raped... and as well... they also are rapists. Women rape. Children rape. It's not exclusive to men.

I can't classify rape as a hate crime. I think that the instances in which I could classify it as such are way fewer than the ones where I just see it as brutal, horrible, and worthy of the rapist losing their sex organs... so I'd have to go with no on the record books.

The other other half (cont'd 2)

A few points...

No one goes through "transgender surgery" to "become gay" (as was suggested). When a person has surgery, they don't really "become" anything. True, in many places, the society finally allows people to correct their birth certificates and other ID after they opt for surgery, but a person is who they are... before and after surgery. Yes, society at large can't grasp this, but that doesn't make it any less true. I don't think that the surgeon's not understanding the concept has too much to do with whether or not someone gets good surgery... although I do think that the psychologists' not understanding this has a lot to do with who is and isn't allowed to identify as the sex/gender they feel most suits them... and hence, actually qualifies for surgery in the first place. The fact that someone with a stereotypical female body is actually a gay man is not a fact most therapists can grasp... and even more so, the fact that a healthy woman could be completely fine with a stereotypical male body is WAY over the top. (This comes up a lot when discussing the crap that "non-op" MtFs have to deal with.)

The chest surgery is not usually a very difficult surgery. Only in cases where the FtM has particularly large breasts does it become a little more tricky, and that's just because there are bigger scars to camouflage. I can't even guess the amount of breast enlargements/reductions that are done every day in this country. It's not uncharted territory. The "mistakes" which are made are mistakes like not putting in drains, or binding too tight post-surgery and having the chest area necrotize because of it, or not positioning the nipples correctly, or not removing glands, or not removing certain areas of fat, or taking more skin from one side than the other... "mistakes" which aren't really mistakes at all, just the doings of an uncaring surgeon. To add to all of that, right now, because there is no legal precedent, botched surgeries have to just be dealt with by the individual. The FtM can't sue the surgeon for malpractice, even if he knows the surgeon knew better. The lawyers will not take the case, because it's, basically, unwinnable.

The other other half (cont'd)

MtFs don't threaten a man's masculinity and sexuality in the same way FtMs do. I think that MtFs threaten men's sexuality more than their masculinity. With the FtM, the man can write off his physical attraction to the fact that the FtM is really a "girl" and keep on going. With the MtF, the fact that this woman is "really a man" often makes him go ballistic. With the masculinity issues it's different. The Brandon Teena incident was about that, not sexuality. When a man has to reconsider what it means to be a man, and deal with the fact that it has nothing to do with his dick, often he goes ballistic. What happened to Brandon was that those guys decided to show him what a "Real" man was by raping, and then killing him. (Apparently a "real" man is a homicidal dick with legs, but that's another story.)

The same issues come up in the personal lives of transsexuals themselves. I think that it comes up more with FtMs because of the surgical issues. Most FtMs either cannot afford surgery, or will not allow themselves to be mutilated. So, they're left to spending a whole hell of a lot of time tossing the concept around that "man" does not equal "person with long penis and nuts"... or (as I stated previously) "John Wayne".

I've found most MtFs to be very gendered... that is to say, their concept of what a man or woman is physically and the appropriate gender roles for the man or woman are pretty much the same as most non-transsexual people. With FtM's, I've found the opposite. I've met more Transfags then I have heterosexual guys in the FtM community, and even the hetero ones I've met are still pretty open when it comes to whether or not a FtM has had surgery or not, or whether or not a FtM is masculine or feminine in nature. I really think that has a lot to do with the availability of decent surgery... but, as with all things, there are often blessings that come along with the curses. FtMs, because of not being able to surgically correct their bodies, do a lot to help society flush those ridiculous and very often harmful gender roles down the toilet.

Price does have some bearing on how good the result of chest surgery is.... sometimes. All of the guys I saw paid in cash. Some of them had horrible scars. Some of them had nipples under their arms. Some had no nipples at all. The ones who went to the more expensive surgeons weren't as mutilated.

I do think that if the FtM and MtF communities combined, it would benefit everyone. Problem is though, after surgery most FtMs and MtFs just want to disappear into the background. (After a life of hell, who can blame a person for wanting a break?) Pre-surgery, most transsexuals are too busy overcompensating to deal with the sex they are transitioning from. Many FtMs look at MtF's and envy their pre-op anatomy. Many MtF's look at FtM's the same way, and neither of them want to deal with that. Most transsexuals want people to see them as they are supposed to be, not look at them in their deformed state and think that it's just wonderful. Because of this, there is a HUGE rift in the trans community... and it ends up being as polarized as the rest of the world... if not more so. The post-ops barely exist in the community... the pre-ops organize themselves according to sex... and then according to whether or not the gender roles mirror those of the rest of society. For example, it's rare you'll see a non-op, punked-out, transfag allying himself with a post-op, married, businessman, FtM. They bring up too many difficult issues for the other, and so they stay apart.

I don't know that there's a solution to the problem... and I don't know if most people in the GLBT community even think that there is a problem... but from what I've seen, there is. I can only hope that in the future, because of better surgical options and broadening attitudes about sex, gender, and sexuality, things will change. Those still in the wrong color diapers now will eventually benefit from it.

The other other half

"It's ok to lower a man... it's not ok to elevate a woman."

ok... point being... In this society, men are seen as superior to women. True, this attitude has improved over the last couple of decades or so (thanks to Betty & co.), but I think that (especially the older members of) the medical community still continue to discriminate against those they consider to be female. To make a woman into a man, you'd be elevating the woman in the eyes of (sexist) society. When you make a man (a twisted sick man) into a woman, who cares? He deserves to be discriminated against anyway!

Does that make any more sense?


I've seen a great many FtM's post-op results. Not one of them has ever looked anywhere near the level of "perfect" I've seen with MtFs. In fact, most (if not all) of them looked mutilated. I've seen the results of mastectomies done on women who had breast cancer that looked better than some of the chests of FtMs.

In general, I still believe that many doctors who deal with FtMs are simply threatened by them. Most surgeons (still) are men, and even looking at society at large, if men (again, in general) are not beating MtFs to death, they're trying to have sex with them. MtFs do not threaten masculinity in the same way, nor do they cause men to question their own sexuality in the same way that FtMs do. I honestly believe that many surgeons who work with FtMs have no desire to perfect anything. If they did, they'd have to admit that someone born with a vagina should be held in the same high regard as someone born with a penis.


It's not that it's impossible to improve the techniques used in FtM surgeries. Most of the mistakes made (which I know about) were completely avoidable in the first place. It's not that it's currently impossible (like reversing most of the effects of testosterone) to do good surgical work... it's just that the people doing the work don't care to know how to. It's not lucrative enough (less FtMs than MtFs), and (again) I think it is still rooted in sexism for many.

(Sex/Gender/Sexuality labels = just words?)

A good part of what has destroyed my ENTIRE life is "just a word". I don't believe in "just a word". Words have meanings. I'd gladly do more than fire people for "just a word"... if it were legal. "Guilty", however, is also a word.

Yes, if I owned my own business, I too would fire someone for using the word "Nigger"... I'd warn them first, to be fair, and allow for a few slip ups, but no one who would use the word as a standard part of their vocabulary would last.

(back to my point though) I do not maintain close friendships with people who use sexist language.

defining feminism (for the record)

I'm not going to go too far into this right now... but I just wanted to state this, for the record...

(Internally) I react the same way to hearing words like "chick", "honey" and "babe" coming from a non-feminine person as I do to the word "nigger" coming from a non-black person. It pisses me off, and I actually bring the person down a notch, in so far as my opinion of them is concerned.

I think those "Gender Wars" left some pretty permanent scars on me... and actually, I'm pretty glad they did.