What Is Wrong With Being Transsexual?

Or in the case of people who have been post-op for a number of years, what is wrong with having been transsexual?

Why did you get a sex change operation?

Because I was transsexual. Does this mean you are still transsexual? Nope. Since the operation I have never again felt a deep seated need to change my sex nor have I felt trapped in a body of the wrong sex.

But you can’t really change your sex.

Arguably you can and that is what the operation does.  At least if one considers the standard criteria of determining the sex of an individual.  Not some philosophical test or test over and above the test non-transsexual people are subjected to.  If one uses the common test of sex determination, a visual examination based on hole or pole I am indeed female just as I was male prior to surgery.  This means that no matter what weasel words one uses as an euphemism for the operation it does by common criteria change the sex of the individual it is performed upon.  Hence it is a sex change operation.

So are you a transgender?

No I am not.

They hadn’t even invented the word or the social construct when I had my sex change operation By the time they had the transsexual part of me was part of my life history. I doubt would have embraced it even if I had heard it far earlier given the term’s source, Virginia Prince. Virginia Prince was a thoroughly unlikeable pig who managed to combine both homophobia and misogyny in a package that exuded both male privilege and an air of arrogant condescension.  I liked those founders of the pre-Stonewall Gay Liberation Movement that I met over the years far more.

You mentioned that you viewed being transsexual as a part of life history and not as an identity…

Maybe it is a little of both. Transsexuals get sex change operations and then get on with their lives. Yet it is very difficult to escape history although it is possible for many to deny it.  Some go as far as to create a false history and while that may work with the outside world I would have a hard time with extending that exercise to my interior world as it would mean denying so much that shaped me into the person I am today.  Part of that is my activist involvement  in all sorts of political campaigns to save the world before I transitioned, that is still a part of who I am.

Why do you hate transgender? You are part of the transgender umbrella.

I don’t hate transgender. I am quite willing to carry a picket sign or collect petition as part of campaigns to insure the civil rights protections of transgender people. Perhaps the umbrella is like a peculiar religious sect that requires every one who support its right to exist in a non-discriminatory society where rights and equality are respected even if your beliefs are ridiculed to adhere to its complex theology of half baked and often misogynistic beliefs. Thank you but while I support your rights I think the whole ideology is sketchy at best. Perhaps it would be good for those espousing transgender as umbrella to study the history of the gay and lesbian movements of the 1960s and 70s.

Its all about gender…

Gender… I have a hard time with that much abused concept that seems to reify both sexism and sex roles. None seem to dare call all the gender babble for what it is, i.e. more misogynistic bullshit that divide the sexes by roles and require women to only show their abilities in certain fields, only be interested in certain things and adhere to oppressive standards of appearance and behavior. Gender seems like the repackaging of oppressive sex roles that those of us who were second wave feminists critiqued way back in the 1970s.

Are you intersexed?

How should I know and why should I care? Will it erase one bit of the history of child abuse that I went through? Perhaps if more people who claim intersex were to get up close and personal with a variety of dicks on a variety of men there would be far fewer claims of being intersex. The dark line down the scrotum is where the developing sex organs fused prior to your birth and is not the result of doctors operating on you. Transsexualism or transgenderism probably has pre-natal roots, may even be an intersex condition. What difference does it make?

Focus on the Family and all those other right wing hate groups hate us because we use a word with sex in it.

No they hate us because they are hate groups. See The Southern Poverty Law Center.  It is part of their job as hate groups to target other groups for scapegoating.  Get over it.  You do not want to be part of their group any more than they want to be part of ours, or at least most of ours as transsexual and transgender people are more likely to be on the progressive side of the aisle. They hate us for obscure passages in their book of religious mythology and because they can use us to scam their sheeple.

It is not my goal in life to be friendly with bigots.

But isn’t it about gender and gender identity?

I sometime have the feeling that gender is more like a religion than something real.  Much of this goes back to Virginia Prince’s conversations with Dr. Robert Stoller than it does to anything coming from transsexuals during that same time frame.  Virgina Prince according to her biographer Richard Docter was in the closet regarding having sex with men.  Thus it seems there as a lot of internalized homophobia and subsequent projection.

Even in the early 1970s WBTs were seeing “gender identity” as problematic and were using the slightly more precise “core gender identity” to describe that inner sense of maleness or femaleness as opposed to adherence to gender roles.  Julia Serano even dispenses with with “core gender identity” in favor of “core sex identity”.

We have been ridiculed for using the metaphoric expression “women trapped in male bodies” even though that describes our feelings.

Non-op transsexuals and transgender people say they are just as much women as you are.  Isn’t it essentialist to claim that you have to have a vagina to be a woman?  Isn’t woman simply a social construct?

It infuriates post-SRS women with a transsexual history to no end to have their life experiences dismissed by people who have not gone through the same process and claim to be women although male.  I am no longer into playing name calling games. Being human is the basis for having human rights and equality. The thing is that post-ops were once pre-ops and pre-ops were never post-op.  We know what it is like to have been in the position pre-ops are in, they do not know what it is like to be a person with a vagina and that reality.

That physical reality separates us and makes misogyny more a factor in our lives than transphobia, especially for those of us who blend into the world where people are mostly the same sex they were assigned at birth.  This is also why many of us say it takes at least 10 years after SRS to really become women and others to say it is a lifelong process.

I think it is more an existentialist matter than an essentialist matter in that having a vagina between ones legs results in qualitatively different life experience than does living as a woman though male (a Virginia Prince statement describing the lives of transgender people). It is harder to measure qualitative than quantitative as there is no yard stick to measure quality.

What about people like you who can’t take hormones, get SRS or even live as women due to medical conditions, aren’t they transsexuals and as much women as you are since they identify as women?

That is a hard question.  If one has any sort of heart then one does not go around abusing people, especially those who are differently-abled.  The main problem is transsexuality is tied in with process rather than with some sort of definitive diagnosis. It is not like they draw blood, run tests and offer up a diagnosis of transsexual.  People are transsexual because they change their physical sex characteristics to accommodate their internal feelings not simply because they have those feelings.  That is what makes transsexualism an existential action based thing rather than simply an identity.  I have no doubt that some may feel the same motivation I felt and yet be unable to act on it for a variety of reasons and yet thinking or wanting is not the same as doing even if that phrase sounds as though it is coming from a harsh place.  I can recognize that I was able to get SRS in 1972 in part because those were far better economic times when one could live on next to nothing.

Today there is a certain level of class difference between the inability and the ability to access the care that allows the process of changing sex to go forward.  That same class structure makes it harder yet for people of color or people with compromised immigrant status. Yet if anything these problematic questions of status clarify how sharp a distinction there is between pre-op and post-op life.

To be continued….

32 Responses to “What Is Wrong With Being Transsexual?”

  1. Lisa Harney Says:

    I experienced a lot of misogyny before I’d had any surgery.

    I don’t think you can draw a neat line and say “If you haven’t had surgery, you’re not experiencing as much misogyny and are experiencing more transphobia” and vice versa. What do you say to a woman who’s had surgery and can’t find a PCP to take her in? What do you say to a woman who hasn’t had surgery and still gets sexually harassed?

    If you’re claiming that your experience as having had surgery is so inaccessible to women who haven’t had surgery, then perhaps it might be helpful to consider that you don’t know what it’s like for women who have to live for years without surgery, and how they relate to their lives and bodies. That is, you can’t really tell them what their experiences are like, or that you know for certain that they don’t experience certain things for lack of surgery.

    I also think that referring to trans women (before or after having surgery) is reductive and essentialist, and probably doesn’t help make any points to women who can’t access that surgery. That is, I think by using that language you’re actually excluding women who haven’t had surgery from the conversation. Not just that language, but talking about how womanhood is itself inaccessible to those women.

    I tend to think that the constructive conversations around this topic are more about how to make surgery more accessible for everyone who needs it, and not focus on what everyone’s crotch looks like.

  2. sexiesophiets Says:

    Suzan ,I think nearly all you have had to say is quite brilliant.
    I have been post-op for a few years now and could not be happier and while i do not shy away from the trans label society insists on giving me i do consider myself to be a woman in the same way as any other women in this world and i have only ever felt female since the age when i knew the difference between the two sexes.
    I have close friends who by their own choice have decided that surgery is not for them but for me personally this was never an option,i was born female therefore i wanted a complete female body,or as complete as it is possible to be.
    Since my surgery i have never felt any desire to be anything or anyone other than the happy and contented woman i am and while i am willing to assist anyone going along the trans path with any help or information i can give,i do not feel the need to only live within the trans community, I am an individual person in the community just the same as all the other people who I socialise with.

  3. Sharon Gaughan Says:

    Nice work, Suzan. Every paragraph would be a reasonable platform for liftoff toward a separate and more detailed essay.

  4. Lisa Harney Says:

    Oops:

    I also think that referring to trans women (before or after having surgery) is reductive and essentialist

    should be:

    I also think that referring to trans women (before or after having surgery) as male is reductive and essentialist

    • Suzan Says:

      You know some people are in denial about what sex they are and claim an essential femaleness based on presentation but I grew up in the country and the funny thing about country ways is how we got a basic sex education just watching the animals. When one strips away all the constructed gender stuff and how thinking or wishing makes it so male animals have penises and females have vaginas. In mammals anyhow.

      This is one of those matters that separates transsexual cliques from transgender cliques one group is made up of body essentialists and the other group is composed of gender essentialists.

      And people talk past each other a lot.

  5. edith Says:

    Really Suzan?

    “funny thing about country ways is how we got a basic sex education just watching the animals.”

    In Tennessee they say a neo – vagina doesn’t matter. Out in the country, if your cow won’t milk or produce a calf, I think that is considered a big problem. Where does the variation in farm animals names come from — stallion, gelding, ridgeling, mare; cow, bull, steere, freemartin, etc.? Seems down on the farm where they don’t have transsexual or transgender medical treatments, there is a wide variety, a lot more than just male and female.

    Your arguments may be valid in the transsexual vs. transgender realm. I don’t totally disagree with you. How could vaginoplasty not matter? It is very obvious that it does if it is one’s lived experience. In the larger world, however, which defines people legally and medically, this gets very complicated. I think there are only twenty-five states which allow people with transsexual histories to marry in a heterosexual coupling. I am basing that on what I have read from Katrina Rose:

    http://www.translegalhistory.info/index.html

    from the Deakin Review article listed on the page above.

    and in the section on Tennessee:

    http://www.translegalhistory.info/legalhistory/TN/index.html

    The real antagonists are not simply some of the people who write in to the better known glbt blogs, I think.

    Your statement:

    “This means that no matter what weasel words one uses as an euphemism for the operation it does by common criteria change the sex of the individual it is performed upon.”

    is a subjective opinion. I suppose “vaginoplasty” is an example of what you would describe as a “weasel word”. I agree with Lisa, though. Reducing the sex of a person to a set of genitals is reductive. Many people will agree with your statement, many won’t.

    Your statement, below, tacitly implies that there is a totality or holistic aspect involved in changing sex:

    “This is also why many of us say it takes at least 10 years after SRS to really become women and others to say it is a lifelong process.”

    So, changing the genitals is not enough to change sex? In all these discussions you never mention endocrinology. I don’t think there are clear lines. I don’t think only male and female exists with some very rare people who are clearly intersex. Of course, clear examples of all three exist but so do many people who are not so easy to pigeon hole. I think you, a lot of transgender people and even some of the intersex people writing here are wrong. I think the law is complicated. I think medicine is complicated and I think people are complicated. I think you are you but who you are does not define who everyone else is.

    Why shouldn’t the dividing line determining who is female be whether one has menstruated, does menstruate, or will probably menstruate? The answer is because it would be unfair to a very small minority of women. When the question is turned around to what should determine whether someone is a man or not the problem gets even more difficult. Anyone who thinks about any of these things for just a little bit of time can see the difficulties.

    Whether someone has genital surgery or not is not some magical alchemical event, it is maybe the most important thing to a transsexual person, especially to someone who feminizes, but it would be meaningless without taking into consideration how much more is involved. If putting people into categories is necessary, it is a “necessary evil” and oversimplification that really doesn’t do anyone justice.

    • Suzan Says:

      I have to notice that gender essentialists have this tendency when challenged to want to move the goal posts further to the right and and place the same sort of right wing qualifications on the sex of post-SRS women that the Christo-fascist do.

      I basically use the same criteria for sexing that the vast majority of people use. As for some ten years past SRS… That is more about the becoming post-transsexual to the point where transition is ancient history.

      People who haven’t had SRS think it is not some sort of magical event. People who have often describe themselves as one of *Doctor’s Name* “girls” and the biographies are full of the miracle of surgery narratives.

      Also common are the stories of people who didn’t think it would change much announcing afterward how they were wrong and it changed a great deal. I sort of fell into that camp. I was one of the flawless children graced with a feminine face and build that meant passing was a matter of brushing my hair differently.

      I was too much of a feminist and an atheist to call myself one of Dr Laub’s Girls or believe in miracles.

  6. Lisa Harney Says:

    Your first paragraph doesn’t take transsexual people into account at all. You’re looking at this from an assumed (but not actual) objective reality where the labels we have placed on everything supercedes the realities as experienced by people who have had those labels imposed on them. Sex is a way of gendering the body, not an objective external reality that should supercede everything – especially dealing with the realities of trans lives.

    I am not saying that anatomy is subjective, but I am saying that the definition of one kind of anatomy as always male and one kind of anatomy as always female is subjective, and it is necessary, if trans people are going to be respected at any stage of transition to recognize that trans women are women and should be acknowledged as female, and trans men are men and should be acknowledged as male. Surgery should not be the point where that determination is made, with everyone who has not had surgery continually subjected to coercive misgendering anywhere from legal documentation to conversations in the blogosphere.

    Your denial argument could be applied to DNA – and in fact, it frequently is. When I see cis people talking about trans people, they will often insist that trans women are genetically male and that nothing can be done to erase this. You’re just shifting the criteria to one that happens to favor trans women who have had surgery.

    I’m not saying that surgery is not important or profound for anyone, or that anyone who has not had surgery knows what it’s like to have surgery.

    But what about hormones? Take estrogen for 10 years – what then? This has a significant impact on your body and your biology – perhaps more than vaginoplasty will. It affects everything about you from the shape of your body to what you smell like, doesn’t it? How does this not have an impact? Why is surgery the shibboleth that marks a “real” woman who gets to be labeled as female?

    How many trans women do you know who haven’t had surgery, perhaps for years after transition? How can you know what they experience? How can you know that they don’t experience any shifts over time, or that all trans women who have surgery do experience those shifts? You’re making some fairly sweeping generalizations that don’t even seem to apply to most of the trans women I know, nor to myself.

    I see where you’re coming from, and I totally recognize that you’re talking about how a lot of trans women do have a lot of trouble accessing surgery, but the solution to this is to work on improving access to surgery – getting more insurance companies to cover it, getting Medicare and Medicaid to cover it, and making it easier to change documents without the need for surgery so that trans people can actually work a regular job without social security outing them with no match letters – or as nearly happened a few years ago, mandating that no-match letters means firing employees.

    It’s a matter of privacy and dignity. Even if you personally don’t accept trans women who haven’t had surgery as female, it’s still risky and harmful for them to look for housing, look for work, if they’re either required to out themselves on their applications/resumes, or be involuntarily outed three months down the line.

  7. Lisa Harney Says:

    Also, since it always seems to come up: I’m a transsexual woman, I don’t identify with the transgender label at all, although I don’t usually object to it. I don’t relate to the idea that surgery means you’re not trans anymore.

    I care about harm reduction for trans people, and not what their genitals look like.

  8. Willow Arune Says:

    In a word, nothing at all…

    It is part of who I am, what I have done and part of my life story.

    And, to add to this:

    http://www.dyssonance.com/?p=1652

    “Imagine the term Transgender used as an insult.

    Well, that’s what’s going on with a small group of trans people. And make no mistake, they are absolutely trans people. But they do not consider themselves trans people.

    The particular group involved here is a break-away sect from the slightly larger US “TS-SI” sect, which is itelf a break away group from the “HBS” sect of Trans people.

    These people are surgical supremacists, to start with, and the fastest way to discern one is that they decide that some people are and some people aren’t transsexual based on puerile and utterly subjective personal opinions.

    The splinter group in this case calls themselves “Classic Transsexuals”. They are seeking to gain ownership of the term transsexual. To them, a transsexual is only such if they happen to “vibe” right to them, and if they happen to have an acceptable “narrative” (personal history), and if they happen to hold acceptable views similar to them. The requirements for which change according to how they feel about the individual.”

    Good article, valid argument.

  9. Sharon Gaughan Says:

    Whatever could be said about the Dyssonance article, it is factually incorrect when it comes to TS-Si.

  10. Andrea B. Says:

    @ Sharon Gaughan,

    If you look through previous comments left on her blog you will see what has happened.

    Some of the HBS-CT are attacking at every oppertunity. They then keep mentioning WBT and TS-IS in other forums. This all get mixed together and then we all get blamed when in fact it is nothing to do with us.

    Most of the people attacking Dyssonance are late transitioners who are living out a fantasy world behind a keyboard.

    I have contacted Dyssonance directly in the hope of opening up dialogue. Could you privmail me a contact email for you and I will try to get her to contact you directly?

  11. Sharon Gaughan Says:

    Sure thing, Andrea. The trouble is, I do not seem to have your email handy. Perhaps Suzy or Tina could send it to me and I can respond to you.

  12. Andrea B. Says:

    @ Suzy

    Can you please email Sharon and myself so we can communicate?

  13. timberwraith Says:

    I just checked six dictionaries and in all but one, the first definition in each used reproductive capacity as the central feature of their definitions (being able to bear young, producing ovum, producing larger gametes, etc.). Here’s the kicker, unless a trans woman has particular intersex qualities, she simply doesn’t fit that description. In fact, those of us who have had SRS (that includes me) have had our vaginas constructed, at least in part, from our penises. In other words, our genitals are modified from genitals that were originally configured to produce and deliver male gametes. By generally accepted definitions, we aren’t female, and by many social dictates, we aren’t women. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve faithfully taken hormones and had surgery, we don’t fit the generally accepted definitions.

    Now, I think the generally accepted definitions are socially derived/contrived and don’t represent the lived realities of many women (both cis and trans: some cis women can’t bear young, either), in much the same way that Lisa Harney wrote up-thread (great response, BTW, Lisa).

    And of course, having a surgically constructed vagina doesn’t stop the nice man with the baseball bat from bashing our heads in. That’s because he tends to agree with the unfortunate definitions in my first paragraph. Does this mean he’s as an over-enthusiastic supporter proper semantics and a faithful acolyte of Noah Webster, or is he just a violent bigot?

    So, just for the record, you’re standing in a glass house when you are throwing those stones. It happens to be the same glass house that the rest of us are standing in. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting tired of picking shards of glass out of my hair and my coffee. You may be able to ignore the sharp, grainy, eviscerating taste of your cuppa joe, but I can’t.

    • Suzan Says:

      Many of us do not face attacks because of our medical history. And sometimes when we are attacked it is because we are women and women are all too often attacked by rapists.

      When sex is assigned at birth it is assigned based on the appearance of the genitals. I tend to assign sex based on the same with the gender stuff on top. And I have had TG lovers in the past.

  14. timberwraith Says:

    *slaps forehead* By the way, the six definitions that I looked up were the definitions for female. I forgot to mention that. The grainy coffee must have distracted me or something.

  15. Willow Arune Says:

    Now, the title above is “What’s Wrong With Being Transsexual?” My response has been “Nothing”.

    The problem, I suggest, arised with we try to be something we are not – in the minds of most others out there.

    Now, this is not popular, but we are transsexual women. We are not and never will be women in the standard usage of that word – that is my opinion. We are and will be accepted as women socially which is as good as it gets. To demand more is, to my mind, rather silly and totally counter-productive.

    I well understand the anger when someone misuses pronouns or such. My own experience is that such rarely happens when I am dealing in the real world, but often happens when I am interacting with other TS types. But that emotional response is not there in a rational discussion of what “we are”. Forgetting all the post-modern stuff, we start our lives as males (using that word as most of the world does, not in some special way limited to only ourselves), physically, as so we remain until an archaeologist digs up our bones in centuries to come.

    Look, I live life happily as a woman. I am accepted as a woman by my friends and others in our town. I have not had a missed pronoun in years. And while I don’t advertise, I certainly do not hide either. Granted, Canada differs form the US, and up north, we differ form those in the south. But I can honestly say I have not had one issue arise in eight years up here. Do people know? Of course they do. Does that matter? Not a bit.

    I once said, and still believe, that we place ourselves in our own fiction and to us it is true. Then we demand that others, without the same needs and desires, accept fully the fiction we have created. Well, they will not and we should not demand that they do. Are we different? Yep. So why demand we be the same? Rather, let us be different and respected, with the same rights as all others. Special? Yes, indeed. And trying to shove our square selves into a small round hole simple makes for friction and bends us out of shape.

    Sure, this is not popular, bu tI firmly believe it bests beating your head against a brick wall. Reality is there. Face it, deal with it, and most of he issues that we conjure up disappear.

    The answer to the question remains – there is nothing wrong with being transsexual. Not one bit. Just as there is nothing wrong with being Black, Asian or anything else. So we can”hide” a bit better, but we are what we are.

    I have found that this simply approach works for me, for where I am. I am respected and treated as just another human, just another woman. Now I grant, we do not have many of the religious fundies up here (over 45% self-identify as “evangelical” in the US; under 10% of Canadians do so). But that is an aberration – to run one’s life to satisfy those types is insane.

    All the arguing about words. Classic, true, primary, secondary, AG or what? I and my friends are in, the rest of you are out. Such nonsense. Only red haired people are true transsexuals – just as silly as the rest, in my opinion.
    We are true women! Socially, yes. Do you need more? So how many angels dance on the head of a pin, exactly? Bah! Stuff and nonsense.

    I am a transsexual woman and damn proud of what I am and what I did to get here.

    • Suzan Says:

      Along with the 45% who identify as Evangelicals (of which some are left wing Evangelicals like President Carter) there is some 20% of people who identify as atheist or agnostic.

  16. Willow Arune Says:

    Hey! 20% Onward and upward!!!!

  17. timberwraith Says:

    Many of us do not face attacks because of our medical history. And sometimes when we are attacked it is because we are women and women are all too often attacked by rapists.

    If you have not been attacked because of your history, then count yourself as being among the fortunate. Too many have been attacked when their history is discovered, regardless of whether it is willingly revealed or discovered by accident.

    When sex is assigned at birth it is assigned based on the appearance of the genitals. I tend to assign sex based on the same with the gender stuff on top.

    OK, that’s your set of criteria, but many others embrace stricter biologically focused criteria so that they can exclude trans women as a whole from the categories “woman” and “female”, regardless of medical intervention. Your set of definitions are crafted to exclude a subset of trans women based in part upon a different set of biological criteria. If you get to do this, so do they… and they have a heck of a lot more political resources than you do.

    • Suzan Says:

      The vast majority of us are not attacked.

      Indeed many of us find the violence ending once we come out and transition. I was far more often brutalized when I was a child than I ever have been since I started living as female.

      Further it is often over looked than often times the violent attacks are upon sex workers. Or people who recently entered transition and have not yet learn the rules girls are taught from childhood regarding the dangers presented by men.

      “OK, that’s your set of criteria, blah, blah.” The Christo-Nazis are the ones who “embrace” this. Their opinion doesn’t count as they are nothing but ignorant bigots.

      The British had a lot more resources than the American’s who said no to their oppression. Does that mean one shouldn’t stand against them.

  18. timberwraith Says:

    It’s nice to see that you have a bunch of convenient rationalizations for all of these issues. BTW, it’s not just the Christian right who embraces these views: it’s quite a bit of the public. If you want to hide from these issues, that’s certainly your prerogative.

  19. Willow Arune Says:

    Suzie,

    I know a few sex workers (yes, even here – in fact, especially here) and almost all have had had bad experiences. Most have recovered and are now wonderful people.

    You wrote:

    “Further it is often over looked than often times the violent attacks are upon sex workers. Or people who recently entered transition and have not yet learn the rules girls are taught from childhood regarding the dangers presented by men.”

    Too true, in both cases.

    Several years ago, A TG Metis was killed here when her client “discovered” her status. Being up front avoids many issues – but that is an old and endless discussion. As to recent transition situations, oh yes. I really had to learn what not to do – something a girl learns very early in life. Male privilege leads to TS ignorance and that can lead to major problems.

    • Suzan Says:

      I really do not believe the part about murder after discovery.

      Those who prey on sex workers are really sick fuck who look for people to murder that society treats as trash. I.e. racial minorities, sex workers, homeless people and especially trannie sex workers.

      Society buys the homosexual panic defense because it panders to heterosexis, misogyny and their bully in the sky “faith”.

  20. Willow Arune Says:

    I agree – those who do violence are sick. My aversion to anything like that stems from my childhood – I think I was five when I vowed never, ever to to that to another person.

    The trial was held locally and an additional penalty given due to the bias shown by the Defendant. So the defence did not work – in fact, he added to the time he will serve.

    Bully in the sky? I prefer to picture Zeus alive and well on a tax haven island in the Caribbean.

  21. edith Says:

    @ Timberwraithe

    Your reasoning regarding the definition of sex is along the lines of that used by Chief Justice Donald Alegrucci of Kansas in the Gardiner decision:

    http://www.transgenderlaw.org/cases/karelease.htm

    • Suzan Says:

      The truth about both of these cases are that “money wins”. One Christie Lee was up against an insurance company. The other J’Noelle was a 40 year old married to a rich 80 year old. that tainted her case the same way Anna Nicole Smith’s case was tainted.

      For what it is worth the solution is marriage equality, where any two adults can marry anyone no matter the sex of the individuals involved.

  22. Ishtar Says:

    Hello Timberwraith

    I have to admit that when it comes to socially dictated definitions of female, it is often a checklist consisting of a million boxes, and when it comes to male, then there is about three. Can grunt, can hit, and doesnt give birth. What does that say? Ever noticed as Suzy has pointed before now how it is transsexual women who seem to get the most grief, as opposed to transsexual men. What does that say. in intersex situations we find the likes of Dreger running around saying “all intersex people want to be men (Or Else), What does that say?

    Society likes penises perhaps? It is called misogyny and it is a problem pretty much every woman faces.

  23. Véronique Says:

    Suzan, I don’t have to agree with everything you write to respect both your reasoning and your straightforward way of saying things. And as it happens, I agree with what you wrote above.

    I have no problem with post-op women who choose to call themselves trans women or transsexual women, as long as they don’t impose it on others. But it’s not my choice. “Woman” and “WBT” work for me.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: