Tuesday, May 3, 2011

The Irony of it All

I sometimes wonder why people do certain things and why certain groups, transgender, try and obfuscate their true intentions but every once in a while one of the crowd lets it slip in a post or a comment.  Only then do many of us really see what is at work behind the scenes as they try and weasel their fetish or social problem into mainstream life.  They will always talk about issues and problems using the term trans or transgender because that covers their personal fetish.

Now, I do not wish any of them harm or wish them ill will but, a really large butt, they have no right to many of the rights they are pushing for. It is interesting to watch as a transvestite or a cross-dresser crosses that line where they no longer claim they femulate or emulate women but have an identity problem. What that identity problem is baffles me but the one I would hang on them is not identity. In many case you will notice they omit the gender part of "gender identity" because that is a red flag.

There is a quite good poster on T-Central that has started crossing that line. He is a very good writer and I have enjoyed some of his humor but his last post crossed a line. Instead of being a cross-dresser he referred to himself as trans and someone with an identity problem. Under normal circumstances this would not really mean much and I would put it down to the delusions of a super cross-dresser or super transvestite but several comments gave me the creeps.

The first was that this individual was representing "trans" people in some "show and tell" at a local University where around 8 of them arrive and are introduced with short bios and then answer questions. I would like to ask how many are "actually" transsexual but I doubt I want to know the answer but I am sure they are "sisters" or more3 correctly "misters" in arms. This by itself is no big issue because most college kids know a transvestite from a transsexual hopefully but I wonder how many know the difference between a transsexual and transgender? I am sure this emulator is being sure to use the "we are all the same" transgender line because right after mentioning this they go into "gender identification" rights at work.

Well more correctly he goes into gender identification or transgender rights at work or lack thereof in his workplace.  From previous posts I believe they know he is a cross-dresser but there is absolutely no question where this is headed. He wants transgender rights that should be reserved for those born transsexual at work. The key behind the entire use of transgender is so transvestites, cross-dressers, and the gender variant crowd can decide on a daily basis how they want to present. They want to include themselves with those born transsexual and it is a travesty that many sit around and say nothing.

Transvestites and cross-dressers have become brazen and quite aggressive over the years about presenting in public.  One only has to read some of the transvestite blogs about their public excursions but there is one common thread in all of them. If questioned they say they are transgendered and never admit to being a transvestite or a cross-dresser. The term transgender to mny means transsexual or certainly blurs the lines so John Q Public thinks they are dealing with someone with a gender identity issue with the implications inherent. This probably a generalization but I have never read anywhere that one identified themselves as a transvestite or cross-dresser.  Transgender is good because it obfuscates what they r3eally are which is someone with a fetish that gets a major sexual rush out of being perceived as a woman.

As they have tried to remove the use of transsexual from society with the term transgender, they have that ulterior motive of justifying their fetish as something other than what it is. It is a fetish and not in any way related to gender identity until they reach that point in life where the fetish cannot give them the thrill and many head nto the chopping block so Ed can be permanently Edna and we have the regrets we have read about.

The person I mentioned above is setting up his workplace or hoping to push them into using the term transgender which will eventually lead to him being able to go "part time" of "full time" or whatever transvestites call it.  When you read of transvestites talking about "transition' then you know this world is screwed up. If corporations use any word other than transsexual or transgender with a clear path to sex change surgery then they are opening Pandora's box for themselves with the fetish crowd.

The irony of it all is many of these people appear on T-Central and attempt to hide under the transgender banner and claim to understand what it means to be a woman and are experts in all things female or worse; yet they claim those of us that have passed through this nightmare will never be accepted as women because genetically we are not women; but genetics deals with whether one is gentically female which I will never be unfortunately; but it does not mean I am not a woman. The real irony is they cannot see that in society one is considered female if one is thought of as a woman.  Thankfully that is the one thing the transgender crowd cannot do. No matter what they do they cannot legislate themselves into be recognized as women because the public and women determine that and you fail miserably.


Anonymous said...

At this point, I no longer know any cross-dressers. The ones I knew weren't public about it, except for one who seemed to be full time. I don't know how this person dealt with washrooms and such. The person was not at all pushy.

I'm not a regular reader of the blog you refer to, but I read the post. Definitely something to be concerned about.

I dislike the term transgender for the reason you cite: it obfuscates rather than clarifies. It has become a weasel word to avoid being specific. I hate when it's used to subsume transsexual, and don't like it any better when it covers cross-dressing as well.

I know several people who are genderqueer. They're the ones who get discriminated against for their non-conformity. But they aren't anything like transsexual people, and don't seem like cross-dressers either. The umbrella is both silly and misleading.

Anonymous said...

Ariel this is all very well but at what point do you personally draw the line between transgender and transsexual? I know where I draw the line and every time I draw it I cop flack and a verbal bashing because of it. I'm a big girl I can handle it but I'd like to know where YOU draw that line. Either way at some point that line has to be drawn and it's no good obfuscating the issue by a declaration of "it's blurred and vague" that just will not do it's a weasel and a cop out.


Anonymous said...


So you think I need more flak and verbal bashings? I think I've endured more than my share recently! Nonetheless, I'm already on record about where I stand. What I say here is no different.

As I'm sure you know, transsexualism is a medical condition in which "brain sex" is out of sync with a person's anatomical sex. Unfortunately, there is as yet no medical test for this condition, so health care providers rely on self-reporting.

People who are transsexual need to change anatomical sex. In an early blog entry, I cited a post by Sharon Gaughan of TS-Si which allows for certain exceptions, but in general, if anatomical sex change is possible, someone born transsexual will get it.

I don't think this is really such a controversial position. I think most of those who do not wish to have surgery, for whatever reason, are content to call themselves transgender. And there's no shame in that.

Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to trap you Ariel neither am I attempting to draw a different response from you than the one you have already stated elsewhere. However in your response here you display a reluctance to state or even restate what should be a clear position and the reason is clearly founded in fear of a verbal attack from some quarter. I understand that since I've been a target of those attacks many times and long before you arrived on the scene. Right there is the crux of the issue. As you well know my belief is that a great many undergoe SRS for reasons other than transsexuality; it makes me a target for a torrent of abuse. Others take the view that undergoing surgery is a qualification in itself. I disagree, so my view and position is clear.
The term "transgender" is designed to make that border and definition intentionally confused and the "policing" of the definition is aggressively defended by one side in order to make it unclear and lacking definition. It's done solely to mask the fetish nature of the transgender notivation.

So Ariel, I have made my position clear often enough and have done once again. I don't see the same integrity shown in the opposing view all I see is ever greater obfuscation and weaseling. People should have the courage to express their belief.


Anonymous said...


I thought I was quite clear!

I am also on record saying that there are a number of reasons that someone might have orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, and labioplasty, and that being transsexual is only one of them. So having surgery is no proof.

But that wasn't what you asked.

I disagree that all persons who call themselves transgender are fetishists. I know too many people who are clearly not fetishists. They've done everything except have SRS. They almost surely do not function sexually (being chemically castrated), nor do they go back and forth. I don't care if these people call themselves transgender. My only concern with that term is what it's applied to people who are not transgender, like me.

In general, I think we are in agreement. I can't do anything about those who hold other views.