Change Your World-NOT your Body

Thursday, December 13, 2012

The Gulf between Reality and the FTM Community



The above image is being utilized in some FTM spaces to pimp out the false notion that with the aid of drugs and permanent mutilative surgeries young (trans) women can obtain a model male body. Like "buffalo bill" in some Silence of the Lambs like way, young women are being cozened that they can make themselves a man suit. But unlike Jame Gumb who externalized his pathological misogyny to murder women and then use their bodies in order to make himself a "women's suit", these young women in the absence of Feminist Gods have internalized their pathological misogyny and believe (are led to believe) that through drugs and the doKtors knife can use their own body to cut, carve and whittle themselves into a man suit!

But like so many suits found in the closets of business men everywhere, suits are something we put on and take off, they are NEVER something that we are. And if and when we become our clothing, no matter the material we are not merely buried underneath, we are never seen or heard from again regardless of how loud we scream.

dirt
Enhanced by Zemanta
Share:

79 comments:

  1. Where did that image come from? I haven't seen it before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are feminist gods? And how do you propose to make them a part of our lives? If you believe that's the source of the problem, what solutions are you suggesting?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've been looking all over, and I can't find the source of that image, or any trans sites that are using it. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they were. I imagine the point of the image is that we choose how we present ourselves to society, and we can present as male even if we were not born with a male body. You can add creepy undertones to it if you want, but that doesn't mean that it is creepy.

    The reality is that a male chest isn't what makes someone a man. Otherwise, there wouldn't be male-born people who decide to transition to female. In that way, the male chest is like clothes. Wearing a man's suit doesn't make you male, and wearing a dress doesn't make you female. Our outward appearance is just how we choose to present ourselves.

    What matters is what's in our heads. It's our psyche and our emotions that determines who we are. If we were born with female bodies, but we identify as men, then yes, we have the option of using surgery and hormones to make cosmetic changes to help us present the way that is right for us (of course, most trans people don't use surgery or hormones. Those are just two options for transitioning).

    When you say that our options for presenting the way we want are creepy, when you degrade it, when you call people delusional for making choices about who they are, you aren't helping women. You are trying to scare women away from choice. You're trying to force women into gender stereotypes, instead of empowering them to explore gender and find what's right for themselves. Women who don't want to have traditionally female presentation or traditionally female bodies don't have to transition. Transitioning is just an option for some of us.

    As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if this image was used on trans sites. I also wouldn't be surprised if Dirt found an image that has nothing to do with any trans sites and decided that it was a symbol of everything that's wrong with transitioning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've never seen that image either and I am on tons of trans sites.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here are a couple things that I would be interested in hearing a trans person address. First, when you say that you "identify as men," what exactly do you mean by that? What do you think are the differences between being male or female beyond the outward appearances of genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics and/or hormonal makeup (which varies widely among people anyway)?

    Secondly, why does it matter about presenting an image to other people if you know who you are inside? My experience is that other people might not understand me regardless of how I may "present" to them...

    ReplyDelete
  6. @DM:
    Do you actually want to hear a tranman talk about why they identify as male? Or do you want to look for excuses to pick apart someone else's identity?

    I ask, because there's a lot of information about gender identity and how it differs from physical and chromosomal characteristics out there. It's been talked about a lot on here. When transmen take the time to expose themselves and talk about their identity here, people tend to respond by calling them names, saying they're delusional or victims of misogyny, and otherwise trying to tear them down.

    If you really are interested in an answer to that question, you could start with the wikipedia entry on transgender. There's a lot of useful links there. I also like http://transwhat.org, which has some good basic information.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @DM continued

    As for your second question, yes, people won't always understand people no matter how they present. This is evidenced by the fact that people like dirt refuse to respect transgendered people by referring to them by the gender they identify as.

    I think I sense that you are verging on pointing out something along the lines of "we shouldn't care what other people think, we should learn to be comfortable with who we are." That is a nice sentiment, and ideally, that's the way the world would work. However, it' snot practical. Nor does it take into account things that should be changed, like a person who has an unhealthy weight.

    Reality is a lot more complicated than a pithy saying about loving yourself for who you are. Yes, we need activism to make people understand that they can and should be happy with body types and styles and identities that aren't idealized in media. Yes, we should be working hard to help people be happy and healthy in their bodies.

    For some people, being happy and healthy in their bodies means transitioning.

    Presenting isn't just about other people. Presenting is about yourself. Each individual has their own needs, their own preferences, their own identities. We decide for ourselves how we want to present. To be clear, this doesn't mean we decided to be trans, or decided to be gay. Some of us feel that we have to use hormonal or surgical transitioning in order to be healthy. Some of us believe it's more of a choice.

    The important thing is that we all have the right to present the way we want, and we have the right to identify our gender the way we want. We might try to ensure that our presentation is received a certain way by other people. We might be upset when it's not. But ultimately, what other people want is not what matters to us. It's what we want.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PS: If you are interested in hearing from trans folks about their identities, then another good place to check out is http://wehappytrans.com/

    There are videos from transmen and transwomen talking about their experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousX


    Dirt, I like this intriguing graphic because it seems to scream out the idea that having a manly, masculine chest is something that anyone can simply slip into as if one were trying on clothes. That is, if one has a large enough bank account. Doesn't the string that is around the neck of the "man suit" chest have a price tag? It looks as if there is a price tag attached to the string. This masculine, muscular chest is hanging on a clothes hanger as if one can simply take out the credit card, pay for this ripped, buffed chest, and walk out the door. To me, it seems to say that skin, flesh, bones, muscle, and sinew can be bought as simply as buying any piece of apparel. We intuitively know it's not true, but no one dares to burst the bubble of illusion. One of the most striking things that catches my attention about this graphic is how perfectly chiseled this chest is. Similar to the way advertisements show flawless, Photoshopped women, this is a perfect male chest that appears as if it sprung from the minds of marketers hawking their wares. Few women look like the slender models in advertisements and most men don't have the time to spend half their lives in a gym. The perfect chiseled male chest is a marketing gimmick designed to profit the designer.

    It has always fascinated me how some surgeons refer to FTM transitioning as "chest masculinization" or "top surgery". Although it's rarely spoken out loud, and the reality is that both healthy breasts are being surgically removed, it's called "top surgery" or "chest masculinization" as if using the word breasts is almost taboo or forbidden. Doesn't the term "chest masculinization" imply that surgeons are attempting to surgically create a male or "masculine" appearing chest where none existed before?

    If the reader doesn't think that plastic surgeons hawk their wares like any other profit driven enterprise, her or she has been hiding in a cave somewhere. Although I don’t know where Dirt found this graphic, photographs of perfectly shaped chests and bodies are common place on the websites of plastic surgeons. Of course, like all good salesmen, they never show any unsatisfied customers, or in this case botched surgeries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousX

    Since the subject at hand is the perfectly chiseled “man suit” chest with price tag attached, perhaps the reader should see how surgeons create a masculine chest on a biological female.

    Because male areolas and nipples are usually larger than female areolas, both areolas and nipples are literally cut off the female, reshaped down to size, and then sewn back on. Then, two large incisions are made to remove healthy breast tissue. I can't think of anything that so radically alters healthy female breasts than FTM "top surgery" or "chest masculanization"


    To me, this video feels like violence being carried out against the female sex. This is how biological females go about obtaining the perfect male chest, and if we closely watch the video nothing is Photoshopped because we see the actual flesh, nipples, areolas, and healthy female breasts being carved off the female form. This is not an advertisement, and we can’t simply slip it on as if it were a new article of clothing. "Top surgery" seems to be a rather ghastly Orwellian mix of internalized misogyny coupled with the all too common quest for a commercialized perfect shape or form.

    WARNING! Graphic video

    Dr. Daniel Medalie performs FtM top surgery (double incision mastectomy with nipple grafting)

    http://www.surgerytheater.com/video/6423/Dr.%20Daniel%20Medalie%20performs%20FtM%20top%20surgery%20(double%20incision%20mastectomy%20with%20nipple%20grafting)

    copy and paste url

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ AnonymousX

    I keep saying to you, we use the word "breast" all the time.

    Breast breast breast breast.

    Chest reconstruction is extreme breast reduction. That's what it really is. The most common chest reconstruction leaves breast tissue on the person, because men have breasts too.

    And yes, surgeons are creating a masculinzed chest where there wasn't one before. That's not being debated.

    Although it's cynical, yes, you can buy whatever body you want as easily as you buy clothes (if you're rich enough). People do it all the time. They get the breasts, buttocks, stomach, chest, nose, chin, etch that they feel is ideal. If you have a problem with plastic surgery in general, fine. Please stop taking that out on trans people. Most of us don't even get surgery.

    And yes, all transmen who have looked into getting top surgery knows what it looks like. We've seen the videos, we've seen the before and after pictures, we've seen the testimonials from hundreds of happy transmen days and months and years after their surgery. Seriously, we've all seen the video you keep posting and pretending is scary. Would you like us to go favorite it? Would that make you stop saying the exact same thing over and over again?

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousX

    "Chest reconstruction is extreme breast reduction."

    I believe someone said this before, but I'm still struggling to understand this confusing "chest reconstruction...extreme breast reduction" argument. In order to reconstruct a male looking chest on a biological female, "extreme reduction" is necessary because the healthy female breasts get in the way, even if the female has small or average size breasts to begin with. Is this the general idea?

    Please forgive my ignorance, but how is reconstruction as in re-building or re-creating what already exists related to "extreme reduction"?

    ***This is breast reduction. Please look at the photographs. Women with extremely large sized breasts can have neck and back strain by dragging around size 40DD every day all day long.

    http://www.vgplasticsurgery.com/BreastReductionPhotoGallery.htm

    As I recall, I asked the following question before and I got no answer. So, I pose this question again. DOES THE FEMALE IN THIS VIDEO LOOK LIKE SHE NEEDS BREAST REDUCTION?

    http://www.surgerytheater.com/video/6423/Dr.%20Daniel%20Medalie%20performs%20FtM%20top%20surgery%20(double%20incision%20mastectomy%20with%20nipple%20grafting)

    I'm not buying the "chest reconstruction" is just another form of "breast reduction" fantasy. It seems so disengenuous as to be laughable if it wasn't such a serious subject.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What a manly-looking chest! It would look so great with an F2T's womanly hips!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Anon27, thanks for taking the time to respond, although I would have rather heard about what you think "maleness" is, and maybe what "femaleness" is as well, instead of being directed to other websites. I've read some of those before, and nothing has particularly struck a chord with me or made me go "Aha, so that's what it's about."

    I'm not into attacking anyone's personal ideas about identity. I like to hear what people have to say, and then decide for myself whether or not they make sense to me or resonate for me. I may or may not agree. Of course people have the right to live as they want. I probably am not going to agree 100% with anything I see here. I have my own thoughts, feelings & opinions.

    I am glad that Dirt has this website because I think that there needs to be critique and dialogue around this stuff, which doesn't seem to happen in very many places.

    I can see that you were trying to second-guess where I might be personally be coming from, and your guesses were partially right and partially wrong. You were sort of on the right track when you said you suspected I might be thinking "we shouldn't care what other people think, we should learn to be comfortable with who we are." And yeah, I agree that ideally that's the way the world would work. I don't see why we shouldn't try to work toward a world like that. It's not impossible. We might be headed there already.


    ReplyDelete
  15. "Although it's cynical, yes, you can buy whatever body you want as easily as you buy clothes (if you're rich enough). People do it all the time. They get the breasts, buttocks, stomach, chest, nose, chin, etch that they feel is ideal."

    Why are the majority of cosmetic surgery procedures (90%) still carried out on women? What is it about women that they never seem to feel secure in their own skins? I contend that the body dysphoria that is so common in women that compels them to seek a surgical cure for this uneasiness with their bodies might also be a factor in "top surgery". We just don't want to admit this to ourselves. Isn't this possible? No one is allowed to discuss this at risk of being called "transphobic".

    http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_differences_and_cosmetic_surgery

    http://www.oprah.com/style/Plastic-Surgery-Statistics-Body-Image-Facts

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't understand why this is confusing. The double incision surgery that is used for chest reconstruction is exactly the same as the double incision surgery used for breast reduction. Chest reconstruction just removes more (but not all) breast tissue. Does that make sense?

    It's called "reconstruction" because all people have chests: men and women. It is taking that existing chest and changing it. That's what reconstruction means.

    Chest reconstruction (aka "extreme breast reduction") is not just for women with large breasts. It's for people transitioning. Breast size does not affect the need to transition.

    So, I can't say if that woman looks like she needs breast reduction. That's up to her.

    Calling it breast reduction is a lot more logical than calling it the scraping away of healthy breasts, which is what I've seen you call it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "I contend that the body dysphoria that is so common in women that compels them to seek a surgical cure for this uneasiness with their bodies might also be a factor in "top surgery". We just don't want to admit this to ourselves. Isn't this possible? No one is allowed to discuss this at risk of being called "transphobic".'

    What's transphobic is the fact that you don't allow for the fact that there are people who have good reason to transition. You assume that we are all living in a fantasy, or hate ourselves, or are giving into misogynistic pressures.

    Why am I not allowed to decide to transition without it being called misogynistic?

    What answer to these questions could possibly get you off our backs and leave us to make our own decisions? What will make you allow us the right to have choices?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @DM

    Well, what femaleness and maleness is depends on the person. If you want to know my opinions, I'll share them, but not on this blog. If you have read much of it, you'll see that when people talk about themselves, they get called some pretty terrible stuff.

    You can find me and my blog at raginggenderriver.tumblr.com if you want to communicate with me personally.

    I believe that critique and dialogue is awesome! Dirt does not encourage either.

    Dirt slanders people and spread misinformation. She deletes comments she doesn't agree with, and she doesn't respond to questions directed at her. At least a few other people here also ignore questions and they just repeat the same angry posts over and over. That's not dialogue.

    There are a lot of places on the internet that are giving real critiques of transitioning, and having real dialogue about alternatives to it and about detransitioniong.

    You can check out http://www.sexchangeregret.com/ for one. There's a few tumblrs about detransitioning (I can't get onto tumblr at this computer to get it for you)

    ReplyDelete
  19. From the desk of transplainer # xyz
    DM,
    Us T people do not have to justify ourselves to you. Pure and simple, no amount of your disaproval will alter the fact we can and will get our much needed surgeries.

    When I went through the transition process I was asked that silly question: What does being a woman/man mean to you?
    I'll give you the same answer I gave my therapist,
    I realy can not describe it. But I know what my gender is. I have always known. I am happy post transition. I was misserable pretransition.
    I am pretty sure that is the only important thing here. MY body is not up for public debate and it damn sure is not the property of the lesbian comunity. It is MY body and that is that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonTG

    I have never met one trans guy who has ever thought that 'Top-surgery' was ever going to give them a chisled muscled chest. not one. they are all well aware that they will have large scars and little to no nipple sensation if having DI, and while no real visible scars are present on the 'keyhole' procedure, they also know that they arent going to wake up to a 'idealized' masculine physique. however i do know many transmen who have worked incredibly hard in the gym to gain the "idealized" male chiseled physique, which is what non transmen also have to do in order to get that look.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "MY body is not up for public debate and it damn sure is not the property of the lesbian comunity. It is MY body and that is that."

    First of all, community is spelled with two “m”s not one. I will attempt to address the statement, "MY body is not up for public debate and it damn sure is not the property of the lesbian community”. No one says it is any one's property, but I still have questions related to FTM (female to male) transitioning. It is true that a woman's body is her own. I don't dispute this statement. However, it is equally true that culture plays an enormous role in how women throughout history have viewed their bodies. As a female, I know that my body is my own, but I'm cognizant of the fact that as a female I'm part of women's history in its entirety. In a real sense, I am an amalgamation of the culture in which I was raised, my own interest and distinct personality, and all the women who have come before me. One of the major problems that I have with transgender is that it seems to epitomize myopia. History didn't begin a decade ago when people first started using the terms "top surgery" or "chest masculanization". The myriad of ways in which the female body has been altered has at least a thousand year old history, and much of this history is rather ghastly. I don't know why this person brought up the lesbian community because heterosexual women, bisexual women, lesbians, celibate women, and all females are influenced by the culture in which they are raised. This is what I want to explore and understand.

    As it relates to FTM (female to male), I don't believe it's possible to completely distinguish between "gender dysphoria" and internalized misogyny. I've said this many times, and I stand by this assertion. This is the main problem that I have with FTM transitioning. If we could take a female child from birth and put her on an isolated island somewhere to eliminate cultural, family or peer pressure, and if this female felt intense discomfort with her female body as if she were trapped in the wrong body, then we could say with certainty that "gender dysphoria" in its purest form exists. No one is raised in a vacuum completely cut off from outside influences. Girls constantly receive messages, both subtle and not so subtle, that they are inferior to men. This process starts when the female child is born.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "MY body is not up for public debate and it damn sure is not the property of the lesbian comunity. It is MY body and that is that."

    Or, I exist as a separate entity...

    (1.) If culture plays no role in how women view their bodies, then why are the vast majority of plastic surgery procedures carried out on women? I'm not opposed to all cosmetic procedures on women, but it has always been disturbing to me that 90% of plastic surgery patients are women, and the majority of surgeons are male. There definitely is something going on in our culture that causes women to search out surgical remedies for the intense discomfort with their bodies. Perhaps we need to understand some of these cultural forces. Through incessant advertising girls and women are made to feel insecure about their bodies, and plastic surgeons are eager to correct this deficiency.

    (2.) Anorexia and bulimia are more common in girls and women. The disorder affects about 1% of adolescent girls and about 0.3% of males in the U.S.

    http://www.medicinenet.com/anorexia_nervosa/article.htm

    (A woman's body is her own. It is MY body and that is that. If a woman wants to starve herself to death, (women have actually died), then it's her body. Therefore, we can't discuss the reasons why women feel so estranged from their bodies, and the cultural reasons that pressure females to look so thin and alluring like the glamorous models in magazine advertisements.)

    (3.) Psychologist call teenage girls and women who have a compulsion to repeatedly scratch and cut their arms or other parts of their bodies "cutters". It’s estimated that about two million people in the U.S. injure themselves in some way. The majority are teenagers or young adults with young women outnumbering young men.

    http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/go/information/get-info/self-injury

    ReplyDelete
  23. @7:18 PM

    The “myopia” you keep talking about is on the part of the trans-deniers.

    First of all, how does pointing out a typo add to the conversation?

    Here’s a few big things you have gotten wrong or just failed to understand:

    Chest reconstruction surgery has been around for well over a decade. It has not been around as long as genital mutilation. Which makes sense, because it is not genital mutilation and was born from an enlightened view of gender identity.

    They brought up lesbians because this blog is by a lesbian who hates trans people, and most of the trans-deniers who post here are lesbians.

    We understand that YOU don’t believe it’s possible to distinguish gender dysphoria from internalized misogyny. Fortunately for those of us who are trans, your beliefs don’t play into our decisions about our body.

    Anti-abortionists BELIEVE life begins at conception. And so they harass people who choose to have abortions.

    Trans-deniers BELIEVE that trans people are delusional. And so they harass people who choose to transition.

    You don’t have to believe in something personally in order to understand that it could be right for someone else.

    I don’t believe that I could ever have an abortion if I had an accidental pregnancy. But I have volunteered time and money to Planned Parenthood and other organizations geared towards educating people about safe sex, and making abortion available to those who choose it.

    You probably don’t believe that gender dysphoria is real. But you acknowledge that it’s up to the individual to decide what’s right for themselves. Because you don’t, you are turning your belief into a source for discrimination and hate.

    Your idea for an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of gender dysphoria is ridiculous. Gender identity is determined by our interactions with our culture. A person doesn’t identify as male or female because of the body they have. They have that identity because they are taught to have it.

    We do live in a misogynistic rape culture. But advocating against the choice to transition does not reduce the misogyny. Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism. It’s just another way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ 7:29

    1) Nobody said culture plays no role. We keep saying, over and over and over again that culture does play a role. But that does not eliminate the right of people to make choices about their bodies.
    1a. Why do you think that we don’t understand these cultural forces? Do you believe that no research has been done on it? Do you believe that no feminist philosophy has addressed it?
    2) That is true about anorexia. However, anorexia is not surgery, it is not medicine prescribed by a doctor.
    2a. Why do you compare a disorder that doctors try to prevent and cure, to a procedure that is monitored and guided by doctors (medical transitioning)?
    2b. Why do you think women who are pressured to look thin and glamorous by pictures of thin and glamorous women would instead get sex reassignment surgery? Do you think it’s fair to compare anorexia and transsexualism based on this?
    3) As far as I know, that’s true.
    2a. Why do you compare a disorder that doctors try to prevent and cure, to a procedure that is monitored and guided by doctors (medical transitioning)? Is there not a difference between someone injuring themselves, and someone having a surgery?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I don't understand why this is confusing. The double incision surgery that is used for chest reconstruction is exactly the same as the double incision surgery used for breast reduction. Chest reconstruction just removes more (but not all) breast tissue. Does that make sense?

    It's called "reconstruction" because all people have chests: men and women. It is taking that existing chest and changing it. That's what reconstruction means.

    Chest reconstruction (aka "extreme breast reduction") is not just for women with large breasts. It's for people transitioning. Breast size does not affect the need to transition.

    So, I can't say if that woman looks like she needs breast reduction. That's up to her.

    Calling it breast reduction is a lot more logical than calling it the scraping away of healthy breasts, which is what I've seen you call it."

    No,the latter appears to be more accurate. Elective mastectomies might also be a good description.


    "I don't understand why this is confusing. The double incision surgery that is used for chest reconstruction is exactly the same as the double incision surgery used for breast reduction. Chest reconstruction just removes more (but not all) breast tissue. Does that make sense?"

    The surgical procedure might be the same, but the outcomes are certainly different. The purpose of breast reduction is to reduce very large breasts (something like a 40DD to a 36C for example) while "top surgery" or "chest masculanization" removes almost all the breast.

    I pose this question to the person who can't stop comparing FTM (female to male) "chest masculanization" or "top surgery" to breast reduction.

    (1.) If we look at all surgical procedures carried out on healthy female breasts, which surgical procedure removes more healthy breast tissue? I'm talking about healthy tissue, not breasts that have been damaged because of disease or trauma of some sort. Is there any other surgical procedure that radically alters healthy female breasts more than "top surgery" or "chest masculanization"? I'm not aware of anything. No matter how we look at this, we can't escape the fact that FTM "top surgery" drastically changes the appearance of female breasts. Because the areolas and nipples are often re-sized then sewn back on, there is a possibility of loss of nipple sensation. These are females who can't even feel their nipples. Although rare, there is a potential loss of nipple graft from tissue death, and loss of part or all of the areola. The sole purpose of "top surgery" is to erase the appearance of the feminine altogether. This seems like a drastic departure from mere breast reduction.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's called "reconstruction" because all people have chests: men and women. It is taking that existing chest and changing it. That's what reconstruction means.

    (2.) My first reaction to this statement is WTF? Does this person mean the thoracic cavity (or chest cavity) which is the chamber of the human body (and other animal bodies) that is protected by the thoracic wall (thoracic cage and associated skin, muscle, and fascia). By chest, does this person mean the thoracic wall and the external structures of the chest (mammary glands and nipples)? Most chest surgeons don't do surgery on the breasts alone. This is usually the domain of plastic surgeons, oncologists, and breast surgeons. FTM "top surgery" or "chest masculanization" involves NO reconstruction of the thoracic wall that I'm aware of. FTM "top surgery" or "chest masculanization" removes nearly all healthy breast tissue in order to cosmetically produce a masculine or male looking chest. Areolas and nipples are often reshaped down to the size of male looking nipples, and then sewn back on. We have to drastically "reduce" as in breast reduction both breasts so that we can "reconstruct" a masculine looking chest. This seems like nonsense to me. FTM "top surgery" is cosmetic and it has nothing to do with reconstructing the chest wall. Mammary glands and nipples could be called part of the chest, but not all the chest (pectoral muscles, sternum, rib cage, arteries and veins, etc.). So, to say that mastectomies as in removal of mammary glands is "chest reconstruction" is a bit disingenuous to say the least. We all have a chest, but if there is nothing wrong with the chest to begin with, why do we need to reconstruct something that is healthy, or free of disease?

    If anything, although rare, any infection caused by surgery, or one's stay in the hospital, as in a hospital acquired infection, has the potential to cause damage to the chest or body as a whole. In this case, it wouldn't be reconstruction. It might be more appropriately called deconstruction.

    (3.) If a female has to have a masectomy because of cancer, is this "chest reconstruction"? Masectomy refers to mammary glands. "Top surgery" in the video below is called "double incision mastectomy with nipple grafting". It says masectomy not "chest reconstruction".

    "So, I can't say if that woman looks like she needs breast reduction. That's up to her."

    Most rational people would more than likely say just by looking at this video, that this woman doesn't look like she needs breast reduction.

    http://www.surgerytheater.com/video/6423/Dr.%20Daniel%20Medalie%20performs%20FtM%20top%20surgery%20(double%20incision%20mastectomy%20with%20nipple%20grafting)

    How in the heck did what are essentially elective masectomies come to be called "chest reconstruction"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Most chest reconstruction now is not a full mastectomy. Mastectomies remove all breast tissue. Chest reconstruction leaves breast tissue because biologic men have breasts.

    The outcomes of chest reduction and chest reconstruction are different for every individual. Breast reduction surgery is meant to reduce the breast size of anyone who wants the surgery. In order to have it covered by insurance, you generally have to have very large breasts that create back and neck pain. However, women can and do elect to have it in other cases as well. Chest masculization does remove more breast tissue. But just because the results are different, that doesn’t mean this is not the same surgery in all of these cases.

    To answer your question: If we look at all surgical procedures carried out on healthy female breasts, we’re not going to be looking at breast reduction due to overly large breasts, or chest reconstruction. I don’t believe that the breasts on a transman are healthy (in most cases). Health is not determined by the isolated tissues in one part of the body. Health is determined by looking at a person in whole, including mental and emotional health.

    Breast reduction for people who do not have overly large breasts and breast enhancement are done on a lot of women each year who have healthy breast tissue. Much more women than there are transmen who get chest reconstruction.

    Yes, top surgery drastically changes the appearance of breasts. That is the intention. The surgeons do what is intended to the great pleasure of 99% of people who receive the surgery. That’s a really good success rate.

    Nipple sensation can be an issue (this is an issue in all double incision surgery, for women and transmen. Though DI surgery has improved a lot, and many women still keep a lot of sensation. Once, women who got DI couldn’t breast feed either, but that’s been improved so that more than half of women still can). But it’s not guaranteed that you’ll lose sensation. It’s one of the effects to consider when you get the surgery. People who get the surgery have considered it and decided it was worth it for themselves.

    So, you’re wrong, women who get DI can often feel their nipples. And transmen who get DI can also often feel their nipples.

    Potential loss of nipple graft is also another possible effect that people getting this surgery are aware of (women and transmen).

    It’s up to the individual to decide if they want to appear feminine or not. So if chest reconstruction is done to change their appearance, and their appearance is changed, then it is successful. You are complaining about success.

    DI may not be a surgery you need or want. But the people who do need and want it deserve to have it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "We do live in a misogynistic rape culture. But advocating against the choice to transition does not reduce the misogyny. Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism. It’s just another way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture."

    "We do live in a misogynistic rape culture. But advocating against the choice to (surgical removal of both healthy breasts, surgical alteration of female genitals, chemical alteration of female reproductive systems) does not reduce the misogyny. Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism. It’s just another way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture."

    In my opinion, sterilizing gender non-conforming people certainly seems to reinforce the gender norms of our culture. That is, if girls prefer trucks over dolls, or sports over ballet, or wearing jeans over dresses, this must mean the female is actually "he" or "him". Let's start with puberty suppressing drugs for the little gender non-conforming tomboy, followed by the "T" as testosterone, then on to "chest masculanization". Actually, with puberty suppressing drugs, the little tomboys barely grow breasts so there is less to lop off later. What better way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture than to surgically alter the genitals of gender non-conforming people? What better way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture than to call little tomboys "he" if they exhibit non-traditional behaviors, and aren't "feminine" enough. I never said that gender non-conforming people don't exist. I just don't think they need to surgically alter their genitals, or change their reproductive systems.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism."

    Erasing female identity promotes feminism. "Chest masculanization" as in I'm removing all traces of female breasts from my female body promotes feminism. FTM stands for "female to male" as in losing or erasing the female. "We do live in a misogynistic rape culture. But advocating against the choice to transition does not reduce the misogyny. Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism. It’s just another way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture."


    "We do live in a misogynistic rape culture. But advocating against the choice to (surgical removal of both healthy breasts, surgical alteration of female genitals, chemical alteration of female reproductive systems) does not reduce the misogyny. Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism. It’s just another way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture."

    In my opinion, sterilizing gender non-conforming people certainly seems to reinforce the gender norms of our culture. That is, if girls prefer trucks over dolls, or sports over ballet, or wearing jeans over dresses, this must mean the female is actually "he" or "him". Let's start with puberty suppressing drugs for the little gender non-conforming tomboy, followed by the "T" as testosterone, then on to "chest masculanization". What better way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture than to surgically alter the genitals of gender non-conforming people? I never said that gender non-conforming people don't exist. I just don't think they need to surgically alter their genitals, or change their reproductive systems.

    "Forcing people to remain the gender that society has assigned them based on their genital does not promote feminism."

    Erasing female identity promotes feminism. "Chest masculanization" as in I'm removing all traces of female breasts from my female body promotes feminism. FTM stands for "female to male" as in losing or erasing the female. By the way, compared to what first and second wave feminists have done for women (voting rights, reproductive health care etc.) what has transgender ever done for women?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "They brought up lesbians because this blog is by a lesbian who hates trans people, and most of the trans-deniers who post here are lesbians."

    Dirt's blog is a bunch of damn lesbians....and I know who you sleep with too....

    I've been watching the activity in your bedroom all this time checking up on you.

    I can see the large purple "L" on your forehead through the screen on your laptop.

    Lez...trans-deniers.....

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ 7:29

    2. I can't tell if you're purposely being dense, or if you don't realize that the word "chest" can refer to the outside part of the upper body too.

    I've already responded to the rest of your coments.

    3. From my understanding, DI is not true mastectomy, because it purposefully leaves breast tissue behind.


    Most rational people would say that whether a person needs breast reduction or chest reconstruction is up to them and their doctors.

    They came to be called chest reconstruction because the look of the chest is being changed.

    If you're having trouble with the word "reconstruct" you can check the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reconstruct?s=ts

    ReplyDelete
  32. @12:07

    It's up to gender non-conforming people whether they want to surgically alter their genitals or not. It's also up to them what pronouns they go by.

    Most gender non-conforming people do not have surgery.

    Very few gender non-conforming people who do have surgery opt for surgeries that result in sterilization.

    Transman usually can, and frequently have, gone on to have children after being on testosterone and having top surgery.

    Transwomen can save sperm in case they want to have children later (just like male-bodied people who identify as male who get vasectomies).


    If there were forced sterilization of trans people going on, then there'd be cause for concern. But there isn't. Trans people have children. No one is stopping them. Unless they decide themselves they don't want to have children. That is their own decision.

    There are plenty of examples of how trans people help break down gender stereotypes.

    I have a young friend who assumed I was a man long before I decided to transition. As he grew older, he began to notice things the fact that women have breasts and asked me if I was a boy or a girl. We have conversations about what gender identity is, and he asks about whether it's OK if he likes pink and if it's OK that his girl friend in school wants to be a fireman. And he gets to hear that yes, it is OK! And he gets to see his family accept a person who's gender isn't cut and dry male or female.

    There are many transmen who enjoy having their periods. They stop using testosterone (for many different reasons) and find they like returning to their menstrual cycles. Having become more comfortable after transitioning, they are able to manage their dysphoria better. Imagine what it would be like if little boys and girls grew up hearing men talk positively about menstruation and being able to go to their male role models for questions about menstruation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @12:08

    Nobody is erasing female identity. If that was true, then there wouldn't be a greater number of men who transition to female, then there are women who transition to male. If female identity was being erased, then there wouldn't be people who transition that identify as bigender or polygender. The fallacy that female identity is being erased only works if there is only female to male transition, or at least far more female to male transition than any other kind of transition.

    Chest masculinization doesn't remove all traces of female breasts. But even if it did, male to female transsexuals get breast implants. Again, there's far more MtF transitions than FtM. So, why doesn't that balance things out?

    @ 12:24 AM

    Um... what?

    There's a lot of people who tell us they're lesbian here, and tell us that they don't believe in trans identities. Nobody's making assumptions. They're going off of what people say.

    Dirt says she's a lesbian in the details about her blog.

    We've got people who use "dyke" in their screenname.

    Most lesbians don't hate trans people. But there are definitely lesbians here who do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What has transgender done for women?

    It's given us the freedom to express our gender the way that is right for us, whether we are women, men, or something else.

    Andrea Dworkin said in her book, Hating Women, that, "every transsexual has the right to survival on his/her own terms."

    Being able to be transgender is how many people survive. I know, there are a lot of trans folks who commit suicide. Our lives are hard. It's just like how gays and lesbians are more likely to commit suicide. Sometimes, we do everything we can to survive, but the world still hates us, people still tear us down, people still tell us we're wrong to be who we are. And not all of us can survive that.

    It's not transitioning that causes people to commit suicide. It's not having the support and means necessary to get help.

    By the way, Dworkin also said, "That means every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions."

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Chest reconstruction surgery has been around for well over a decade. It has not been around as long as genital mutilation. Which makes sense, because it is not genital mutilation and was born from an enlightened view of gender identity."

    I didn't see any chest being reconstructed. Does this person mean "double incision mastectomy with nipple grafting" on healthy breasts as seen on the video? I have a confession to make. When I first saw this video, my initial reaction wasn't enlightenment. When I saw the surgeon cut off the areolas and nipples, then make two long incisions to cut out the breasts, I didn't sense any enlightenment.

    I guess enlightenment is something I can't grasp. I am too dumb to be enlightened.

    I don't mean to be a smart ass, but my first gut level reaction to the video wasn't one of awe-struck enlightenment. It feels like violence being carried out on the female sex to me. It's hard to put in words, but this is how I feel. The almost cavalier way in which the surgeon removed the areolas and nipples on these perfectly shaped breasts sticks in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Aha, found it.

    The image used here is by Alexis Persani. You can find the original here: http://www.behance.net/gallery/-Real-human-skin-/2718439

    It appears to be a photo manipulation project done for a computer arts magazine, titled "Real Human Skin."

    Searching for the image in the google image search does not turn up any trans sites. Though that doesn't mean that some trans site or blog hasn't used it. It just means it's not common enough for google to find it.





    ReplyDelete
  37. 1) Nobody said culture plays no role. We keep saying, over and over and over again that culture does play a role. But that does not eliminate the right of people to make choices about their bodies.

    Culture plays a role in the decision to "transition". Yes, people have finally admitted it. First, we were told that gender identity is more or less fixed in that people know that they are born in the wrong body from an early age. This is why they transition. Now, we are told that wait...well, yes, the decision to transition is partly culturally based. That is, influenced by culture in part. What exactly does FTM (female to male) entail? Both FGM (female genital mutilation) and FTM (female to male) drastically alter female genitals. FGM is certainly culturally based, and so is FTM.

    One interesting obvious difference between FGM and FTM is that FTM (female to male) erases female identity itself which, in my opinion, could be far more misogynistic than FGM.

    ReplyDelete
  38. FtM doesn't erase female identity. It brings a person's body into alignment with their existing male identity.

    I've already explained repeatedly how different genital mutilation is from sex reassignment surgery. Until you come up with something new to say, I'll just keep referring you to the posts already addressing that.

    Gender identity does seem to be fixed in most people and can generally be identified at an early age. How we express gender and identify gender is cultural.

    If you don't understand that concept, then please realize that you don't understand what gender really is. Be happy with your gender identity, and let other people be happy with theirs. If you want to study further for your own edification, please feel free. But since people here have been trying to share their experiences and viewpoints with you and you have dismissed them, I doubt you're interested in developing understanding and empathy for trans people. I just wish you wouldn't use your ignorance as an excuse to harass others.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @1:33 AM

    This person believes that making the choice to transition is worse than female mutilation.

    This person believes that holding a little girl down and cutting off her clitoris without anesthesia or antibiotics is a better fate for someone than being transgender.

    Getting phalloplasty leaves the clitoris and labia intact. It leave the ability to enjoy sex intact. It leaves an individual's ability to make their own choices about their sex life intact.

    But phalloplasty is worse than cutting up the genitals of little girls who were never given a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thank god the men who cut up little girls ALLOW them to be female. If we didn't have these amazing men to show us what feminism was, we'd live in a world full of people making their own choices about themselves and their bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ 1:33 AM

    To clarify, are you saying that being an FtM person is worse than genital mutilation?

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Most rational people would more than likely say just by looking at this video, that this woman doesn't look like she needs breast reduction.

    http://www.surgerytheater.com/video/6423/Dr.%20Daniel%20Medalie%20performs%20FtM%20top%20surgery%20(double%20incision%20mastectomy%20with%20nipple%20grafting)" lol

    How about I say "most rational people would say that you are wrong"? Do I get a prize?

    "What better way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture than to surgically alter the genitals of gender non-conforming people? What better way to reinforce the gender norms of our culture than to call little tomboys "he" if they exhibit non-traditional behaviors, and aren't "feminine" enough. I never said that gender non-conforming people don't exist. I just don't think they need to surgically alter their genitals, or change their reproductive systems."

    I don't know why so many people here seem to think that doctors and therapists bully FTMs into transition (also, many entirely ignore the fact that MTFs exist too because I suppose that would ruin their arguments.)

    I am a transman and I have gone through the system and known many other transman and I have never seen anything of the sort. But I know many people have said this before and how could someone who has been through the system know more about it than all of these brilliant people who can't be bothered to find information about it?

    Your ignorance is as good as my knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ anon dec 15 02:12

    Very well said and 100% correct!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 3:03,
    I think FtM is sadder in a way, because they are actually volunteering for the mutilation, alteration, whatever-you-want-to-call-it of their genitals. Any which way you look at it, this affects and lessens their sensation in what should be one of life's great pleasures for the rest of their lives. And they don't even end up with anything close to an average adult male. I suspect if they did, we wouldn't hear a peep about how being a man is "between your ears" (I've never heard a man say anything like that).
    Germany

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Germany

    Modern phalloplasty does not lessen sensation. It leaves the clitoris and labia fully intact. Some transmen report increased sensation after the surgery.

    Does knowing that affect your opinion? Or will you dismiss it?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Female genital mutilation vs phalloplasty (shortened to "SRS" for the sake of this post)

    FGM is forced on girls typically from a few days old to purberty.

    SRS requires informed consent and usually happens after considerable therapy and closely working with doctors.

    FGM includes removing part or all of the clitoris and/or labia.

    SRS leaves the clitoris and labia intact.

    Some FGM allows the wound from the removed labia to heal together, sealing the vagina in order to prevent intercourse, whether the woman desires it or not.

    In SRS, the vaginal opening is covered by the new phallus and/or scrotum (labia). This prevents vaginal discourse, which the patient does not want to have, and leaves the individual able to enjoy other forms of intercourse.

    FGM is intended to reduce a woman's libido and remove the ability to enjoy sex.

    SRS is intended allow transmen to have a healthy sex life and does not negatively affect libido (most transmen experience a positive affect on their libido due to being more comfortable with their bodies).

    Some FGM is done to make intercourse more enjoyable for men, not for the individual being mutilated.

    SRS makes intercourse more enjoyable for the individual who chose to have it.

    FGM might take place in a hospital, but is usually not performed in a medical facility and usually does not use anesthesia.

    SRS is performed in medical facilities with anesthesia.

    FGM is usually performed with unsterilie cutting devices (including sharpened rocks or fingernails)

    SRS is done in sterile conditions, with sterile medical tools.

    FGM is estimated to cause fatality in 10% of cases.

    With SRS, I haven't found statistics on how often phalloplasty results in death. Statistics show that 0.2% of surgeries overall result in death (including elderly and sick patients). The fatality rate is lower for cosmetic procedures.

    While both FGM and SRS have potential complications, SRS is less likely to result in complications.

    FGM is performed on female bodied individuals no matter how they might identify.

    SRS is performed on male- and female-bodied individuals who identify as men (in case you were unaware, male-bodied people will get phalloplasty for various reasons).

    FGM has been forced on women since early history (the earliest evidence of mutilated females may be women found among Egyptian mummies). It was not officially called mutilation until the 1980s, as women's rights have increasingly become more recognized by society.

    The first phalloplasty ever performed on a transman was in 1946, 16 years after the first male-to-female sex change surgery. It does not use any techniques used in FGM, and has no connection medically, philosophically, or historically to FGM.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You know what I really hate about this picture? The V-neck! I hate V-necks! God, why not a crew neck?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm gonna say the IMMEDIATE reaction of what the male suit and price tag reminded me of: the Borg Queen in Star Trek(specifically the second Next Generation movie, where the Borg go to Earth and try to alter the timeline) and she's also in other episodes in Voyager, ect. Alice Krige...her head and spine which are living human flesh but with some metal implants as well are brought over to a bodysuit and put inside it so she can walk about and interact with the Enterprise characters and her Borg subordinates. It is a suit, some people say we are a 'bag of bones', but it is an exceedingly ARTIFICAL suit, bought by money, and created by surgery, grafts and hormones. There is NOTHING natural about the suit(whether it's a man growing breasts through hormones and then having surgery to enlarge them, or a bio female removing said naturally grown breasts, much less the genitally mutilating surgeries which often destroy one's sexual feelings)...and it is as if these individuals have bought the body self hatred so strongly as to literally become Borgified.

    I cannot help think of exactly that comparison, should you see that movie: 'Star Trek: First Contact' with Alice Krige being put in her suit as the Borg Queen.

    Yep Borgification folks...'You shall be assimilated'!
    -MasterAmazon

    ReplyDelete
  49. "SRS requires informed consent and usually happens after considerable therapy and closely working with doctors".

    The part about considerable therapy is often a joke and we know it. What exactly is "considerable therapy"? In countries like Thailand which does a lot of SRS, I seriously doubt if they are interested in whether or not anyone received "considerable therapy". Let's discuss "considerable therapy" because that is an interesting point. I would imagine that the therapist would have to assess whether or not an individual has "gender dysphoria" or GID "gender identity disorder". Isn't it possible that two different therapist could give two entirely different diagnoses? If a person went to five different therapists, isn't it possible that at least two or three of these therapists would diagnose something other than "gender dysphoria" or GID?

    "Actually it is possible to transition without even consulting a therapist, and many people do go that route. HRT drugs can often be obtained via prescriptions through a family doctor or some other medical specialty, or (more commonly) purchased from overseas with or without a prescription. Surgeons (particularly in Asia) who perform SRS/GRS or other feminization surgical procedures often do not require letters of recommendation from therapists, mostly because psychotherapy is not as common in Asia as it is in the West. "

    http://www.hemingways.org/GIDinfo/therapy.htm

    In most states there is no license requirement to simply call oneself a therapist or psychotherapist.

    ReplyDelete
  50. More on informed consent...

    As to informed consent, I suppose it all depends on one's definition of informed consent.

    There are actual documented cases of state sponosored coerced sterilization of homosexuals via sex reassignment surgery. This issue has been brought up in this blog several times. We know it has occurred in Iran, and we know the government helps pay for the sex reassignment surgery of homosexuals who might fear execution. Homosexuality is punishable by death, but the government will help for the SRS (sex reassignment surgery). Apparently, in this way, the effeminate gay boys are magically transformed into women so that if they still have an attraction for males, they at least look like a heterosexual couple while doing so. That is, the gay man is now a woman, so now it's okay to desire a man. If two men, or two women for that matter, walked down any street in Iran holding hands, the men would be executed, and the women would get so many lashes on the back. It's my understanding that after the second or third offense, lesbians are put to death along with the gay men. Do transsexuals have an easy life in Iran? Of course they don't, but it sure beats being executed. Isn't it fascinating that the Koran and the Ayatollah abhor homosexuality to the point of sentencing them to death, but will tolerate transsexuals.

    Filmmaker Tanaz Eshaghian discovered that the Iranian government's "solution" for homosexuality is to endorse, and fully pay for, sex reassignment surgery. The leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa declaring sex reassignment surgery permissible for "diagnosed transsexuals." Eshaghian's documentary, Be Like Others, chronicles a number of stories of Iranian gay men who feel transitioning is the only way to avoid further persecution, jail and/or execution. The head of Iran's main transsexual organization, Maryam Khatoon Molkara—who convinced Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality—confirmed that some people who undergo operations are gay rather than transsexual.

    While scientists and researchers have known for some time that gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things, scientists and researchers also tell us that a large percentage of gender-nonconforming children grow up to be gay or lesbian if left alone. Yes, many little tomboys grow up to be lesbians, and sweet boys a bit on the sissy side grow up to be gay men. That is, unless they are surgically castrated. If we are going to slap labels of GID on ten year old children and start them on puberty suppressing drugs followed by cross gender hormones, and later surgery, how many future gay men and lesbians are we willing to surgically castrate. Although not acknowledged, intense underlying homophobia and lesbian phobia does appear to me to be one factor in the desire to "transition".

    "I would much rather see my daughter grow up to be a trans man and receive the respect that comes from being a man, rather than be steered into becoming a carpet muncher and someone who gets absolutely no respect in our society."

    http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2012/05/camps-influencing-our-impressionable.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. More on informed consent...

    The practice of giving puberty suppressing drugs to children with "gender identity disorder" has always been a disturbing issue with me. It's my understanding that in some countries, cross gender hormones (testosterone for female and estrogen for males) can be given at age 16. If cross gender hormones are given right after puberty suppressing drugs, fertility can be compromised. Do these children really understand what is happening to them when they are given puberty suppressing drugs. Yes, it is true that puberty suppressing drugs are not sex reassignment surgery, but isn't it true that some children go from the puberty suppressing drugs to cross gender hormones followed by surgery?

    **Kim Petras started transition at age 12 ,and had sex reassignment surgery at age 16. Are 16 year old teenagers capable of informed consent?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214314/Boy-12-turns-girl-summer-holidays.html

    **Jackie Green - formerly Jack underwent surgery in Thailand at age 16.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140837/Teenager-youngest-person-sex-change-clinches-semi-final-spot-Miss-England-contest.html

    The prefrontal cortex of the human brain isn't fully developed until around the early to mid twenties. This is commonly known as the judgment center of the brain. Six-teen year old teenagers might feel different, but that doesn't mean that they have the judgment to decide how to handle these feelings and thoughts.

    I contend that the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" is so interwoven into one's culture that it's difficult to distinguish between actual "gender identity disorder" or "gender dyshporia" and cultural, family, or peer pressures.

    I contend that the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" is something of a farce in that it can never really be quantified in a reliable manner.

    I contend that 16 year old teenagers are too young for sex reassignment surgery.

    We know that historically sex reassignment surgery has been used as a means of social control, specifically the erasing of gay and lesbian identity. I contend that intense homophobia and lesbian phobia might be a contributing factor in one's decision to "transition".

    If gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria does exist, then I believe that the surgically alteration of the healthy breasts and genitals of gender non-conforming people is not always the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  52. In "phalloplasty" on a biological female, it's important to remember that we aren't dealing with erectile tissue as in an actual penis on a biological male. Six to eight inches of donor skin has to be taken from the forearm or other part of the body and essentially sewn onto the pubic area. There will be some scarring from the skin taken from donor site. The skin on the arm or thigh is not erectile tissue.

    "It is important to note that most phalloplasty procedures require multiple surgical visits as well as some revisions. The procedures can involve pain and discomfort, require significant recovery time, and often leave large areas of visible scarring. Because of the nature of using skin grafts, there is always a risk of tissue death and loss of part or all of the penis. Other potential complications include the extrusion of testicular or penile implants, the formation of a stricture (an abnormal narrowing; blockage) or fistula (an abnormal connection; leakage) in the newly constructed urethral passage, and infection. There may also be damage to the nerves of the donor area, resulting in numbness or loss of function. Erotic sensation may be changed or diminished. And the results may not be as aesthetically pleasing as one might like them to be. Also, one must consider the usual risks of any surgery, including bleeding, infection, problems from anesthesia, blood clots, or death (rare).

    Phalloplasty procedures also tend to be very expensive (between $50,000 to $150,000) and are often not covered by insurance.”

    http://www.ftmguide.org/grs.html#phallo

    Risks/complications of metaidoioplasty and phalloplasty

    Possible complications specific to metaidoioplasty without urethral lengthening include:

    • dissatisfaction with the length of the penis (shorter than expected)

    • change in sensation: loss of sensation, persistent tenderness, or hypersensitivity

    • temporary or permanent narrowing of the vaginal opening, making penetration difficult


    • change in urine spray, resulting in splashing of the labia and vaginal skin

    Possible complications specific to urethral lengthening include:

    * urethral fistula: opening between the urethra and the skin, leading

    to leakage of urine (very common: occurs in around 45% of
    phalloplasties)


    * partial or total death of the tissue used to create the new urethra


    * narrowing or closure of the new urethra


    *hair growth in the urethra (from hair-bearing tissue used as urethral lining)

    Phalloplasty includes all the possible complications of urethral lengthening as well as possible:


    * partial or total death of the tissue used to create the new penis

    * numbness or hypersensitivity of the skin of the penis

    * decreased sexual sensation, possibly with decreased ability to have orgasm

    * compromised sensation and/or function of the hand and wrist of the donor arm (approximately 5% of patients need a long period of physiotherapy to recover fully)

    * dissatisfaction with the size or shape of the penis

    * excessive scarring in the donor sites (arm/thigh)

    http://transhealth.vch.ca/resources/library/tcpdocs/consumer/surgery-FTM.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anon 7:14,
    I'm sure in some cases the operations go better than others, but it's far from perfected, and there will always be damage done in any operation. It's just an incredibly sensitive area to be doing anything too for what are actually psychological problems. I've heard transmen "report" all kinds of things, like that they are actually more male/manly than real men, etc. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I just don't buy it that anyone is "born in the wrong body".
    Germany

    ReplyDelete
  54. I see that you can argue some, but not all, of the points made in comparing FGM and phalloplasty.

    However, I still want to know, do each of you who responded believe that phalloplasty can be considered FGM after you consider all of the differences between the two?

    ReplyDelete
  55. The problem with this post is Dirt is only addressing what she thinks transmen think.

    We are all well aware of where surgery and hormones will get us and we have lots of trans people online to look at for reference.

    I wanted my breasts reduced in size pretty much as they developed, When my teen friends said they would like bigger boobs I said id like much smaller ones or none at all.

    As I got older I started researching transgenderism (MTF) I didn't know FTM existed at first but soon discovered that they did exist and there were surgeries like mastectomies available to me.

    I still haven't had surgery due to funds, but I also don't bind, I did discover that alot of transmen do bind, but I don't consciously care what people think about my body so I don't bother to bind.

    For me, a scared flat chest is simply more comfortable to me than my current breast size, It really doesn't have to look like a sculpted model chest.


    Many of you seem to think that if you tell us over and over that we wont look like real men then we wont bother, but for us it is an improvement.

    If someone was in pain, a little relief would be better than no relief.




    ReplyDelete
  56. It is currently legal for a women to have the foreskin of a baby removed without his consent.
    This is a barbaric practice that is still performed nation wide.

    However once that boy has grown up, if he decides to have a circumcision, that is his choice.

    The difference here is consent, no one should have the right to cut up someones body for non-medical reasons without that persons consent.

    If that person wants to modify their body surgically, then that's their choice, thousands of people all over the world do it, just look at the body modification communities.

    Slapping people has been a form of abuse for as long as humans have existed, but hey, if you have a kink for getting slapped by your partner, more power to you.

    The magic word here is CONSENT.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "To clarify, are you saying that being an FtM person is worse than genital mutilation?"

    Below is what I typed.

    "Culture plays a role in the decision to "transition". Yes, people have finally admitted it. First, we were told that gender identity is more or less fixed in that people know that they are born in the wrong body from an early age. This is why they transition. Now, we are told that wait...well, yes, the decision to transition is partly culturally based. That is, influenced by culture in part. What exactly does FTM (female to male) entail? Both FGM (female genital mutilation) and FTM (female to male) drastically alter female genitals. FGM is certainly culturally based, and so is FTM.

    One interesting obvious difference between FGM and FTM is that FTM (female to male) erases female identity itself which, in my opinion, could be far more misogynistic than FGM."

    (1.) Please note that I never said the word "worse". I used the term misogynistic as in supporting patriarchy and harmful towards women as a distinct class. (2.) I said "could" as in the possibility of being so, or something one might consider. (3.) I was referring to FTM "transitioning" (surgery, hormones) because FTM stands for "female to male". (4.) Also, I was referring to erasing female identity and its ethical implicaitons.

    Both FGM and FTM radically alter healthy female genitals. And, as I've been told by some trans identified individuals, culture can play a role in one's decision to transition. If we look at the extint to which healthy female reproductive systems, breasts and genitals are surgically altered, FTM "transitioning" does drastically alter the female form. Am I comparing FTM "transitioning" to female genital mutilation? Not exactly, but when I look at what "transitioning" entails, I get a feeling as if it's something that we have seen before. Female genital mutilation is barbaric, but as brutal as it is, we are still left with a woman in that female identity isn't being erased. In a technical sense, FTM makes dramatic changes to the female anatomy. Indeed, I am not aware of anything that so radically alters healthy female breasts as "top surgery" in which the areolas and nipples are often cut off, reshaped, then sewn back on, and most healthy breast tissue is surgically removed. Phalloplasty on a biological female often takes multiples surgeries because approximately six to eight inches of skin has to be grafted from another part of the body and basically sewn onto to the pubic area. Not only does FTM drastically alter healthy female reproductive systems (PCOS is more common in FTMs who still have intact ovaries and uterus, and this is why some physicians recommend hysterectomy within five years of starting testosterone), breasts, and genitals, FTM goes one step further. In FTM "transitioning", female identity is being lost along with nearly all vestiges of the female form. I argue that the act of erasing female identity itself comes with its own unique set of ethical considerations. This is something that we might want to consider.

    Is FTM female genital mutilation? In all honesty, I don't know, but I will make the following statement. To me, it feels like a form of violence being carried out on the female sex. This is what I sense when I watch the video.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ 9:03 PM

    OK, I got it. So you have feelings. Not facts. That makes it clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "OK, I got it. So you have feelings. Not facts. That makes it clearer."

    It's a fact that if a human is born a biological female (XX), she will never completely be a male. All the testosterone and surgery aren't going to change the reality. It's all a grand illusion that people are supposed to just go along with. Some of us aren't drinking the Kool Aid.

    I'm not perfect by any means, but I have feelings and I happen to know a few facts.

    Happy Holidays to all!





    ReplyDelete
  60. @ 3:15 AM

    You have faulty "facts."

    If a person is born XX, they will never be XY.

    But a person's chromosomes don't determine what gender they are. As evidenced by the -fact- that there are people who are XY who have female bodies and identify as female and are accepted by society as female. And the -fact- that there are people who have XX chromosomes who have male bodies, identify as male, and are accepted by society as male.

    Saying a person who has XX chromosomes can't be male in any way is not a fact. It's your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  61. “It's a fact that if a human is born a biological female (XX), she will never completely be a male.”

    I said biological female, and “will never completely be male” which seems far more accurate than not for one obvious reason. A female (XX) isn’t going to impregnate a woman. Sorry, it’s not going to happen. A biological female (XX) doesn’t have a functional penis with erectile tissue, and all the organs that make up the male reproductive system (prostate gland, testicles, etc.). Gender is not the same thing as sex. Because gender is socially constructed, it appears to be wide open for interpretation, and is difficult to prove one way or another. For example, I could wear a furry suit and call myself a dog. Prove that I’m wrong. The interesting thing about transgender is the general belief that simply because we say we are, this means it’s true.

    As I understand it, the biological definition of male is an organism that produces sperm. Before transgender came into vogue around the 1990s, this was the most commonly understood definition of male. Biologists still use the term male because unlike a socially constructed version of the term “male” that transgender often use, this is a precise definition.

    A male (♂) organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male

    The biological definition of male is different than a socially constructed version of male which us up for interpretation.

    I'm aware of intersex conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome and CAH, but isn't it true that the majority of transsexuals are either biological females or biological males who are no different physically from other males or females who don’t identity as transgender? Isn’t it true that most transsexual do not have an intersex medical condition? That is, in their minds they say they feel trapped in the wrong body. If we exclude intersex, prior to “transitioning”, other than what goes on in one’s mind, how are most FTMs transmen different than other biological females as far as anatomy and biology are concerned? They say they are male, and I say they aren’t. So, who is right? The biology speaks for itself. After “transitioning” (surgery, testosterone), they say they are male because they have some outward physical characteristics of a male. They say they are male, and I say they are not. Who is right?

    By the way, all human bodies are beautiful and complex (trans and non trans, intersex), but females aren’t male. Sorry, I’m not buying it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anon @7:13,
    I think you hit the nail on the head. I always get in trouble for saying trans are "mimmicking" the opposite sex, but it's really no different from them using words like "passing" + "presenting".
    In my bigger circle of friends, I now have 5 who are "FtM", and the last one who "transitioned" was sure she was in reality intersexed, and had a bunch of tests done, but all came out clearly female biology. I also say a woman on testosterone with seconary male sexual characteristics is not a biological male.
    Germany

    ReplyDelete
  63. @ 7:13 PM

    Are you saying that the definition of a biologic male is someone who can impregnate people? That a biologic male has to have a functional penis, and all the organs that make up the male reproductive system? If a man is no longer able to produce sperm, does that mean he’s no longer male? That seems to be the case you’re trying to make.

    Male is not very precise at all. As evidenced by the fact that we apparently have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct.

    Yes, most transsexuals are not intersexed. That’s not what I was saying. I was talking about the fact that the idea of a single definition of a biological male or female is not possible.

    Prior to transitioning, there is no biologic difference between an FtM and a woman-identified-woman. That’s the point.

    The point is that biology doesn’t determine who we are. If it did, then XX people would always be female (even if they had male genitalia). Biology doesn’t speak for itself. If it spoke for itself, then we wouldn’t need social constructs.

    When it comes to identity, the person who is describing their own identity is the one who’s right.

    Let’s make this simple:

    You are wrong.

    BTWP: furries are not the same as transgendered people. They don’t claim to be (mostly, there are a few exceptions), they don’t have the same experiences, and most of them don’t believe they are actually animals. Their identity is “furry.” That generally means a person who enjoys anthropomorphic characters, art, and costuming. That is not the same as a human who thinks they’re an animal. There are people who believe that, but that’s a whole different can of worms.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So you don’t feel left out, Germany. You are also wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Are you saying that the definition of a biologic male is someone who can impregnate people? That a biologic male has to have a functional penis, and all the organs that make up the male reproductive system? If a man is no longer able to produce sperm, does that mean he’s no longer male? That seems to be the case you’re trying to make."

    While it's true that some biological male humans are infertile, AS A DISTINCT CLASS OF PEOPLE, NO FTM (BIOLOGICAL FEMALE) WHO "TRANSITIONS" (SURGERY, TESTOSTERONE) CAN EVER MAKE A WOMAN PREGNANT. Do I need to draw a diagram? Please show me ONE biological female who ever impregnated a woman through sexual intercourse (penis in vagina). I don't mean through artificial insemination because even with artificial insemination the sperm still comes from a male. A biological male might be infertile, or have some disease or trauma to part of his reproductive systems, but the the rest of his reproductive systems could be intact.

    If males didn't exist (XY), how would the species Homos sapians reproduce? Does the stork just drop us off by the front door? Or, are we found in a cabbage patch? Primates reproduce sexually. Show me one species of primate that doesn't reproduce sexually. While it's true that some organisms reproduce asexually, mammals reproduce sexually - dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc). Plants can reproduce both sexually or asexually. Do we plan on cloning humans any time soon? Even if we cloned humans,there is a possibility that we could lose some genetic diversity over the long run because built into the basic principles of biology is fact that there are both advantages and disadvantages to sexual reproduction.

    I'm sorry if this is offensive to people, and I don't mean to burst any one's bubble of transgender illusion.

    Is this person trying to compare biological males who are infertile with FTM (female to male) transsexuals? It appears that this is what this person is trying to imply in some convoluted way. Because some males are infertile, does this mean that ALL MALES (XY) are exactly like biological females (XX) who "transition" (surgery and testosterone)? Have people gone totally insane because this is ludicrous on its face. Perhaps infertile males don't want to be compared to FTM (female to male) transsexuals who "transition"? Did anyone ask infertile males what they think? Do FTMs (female to male) have all the organs listed below? If not, why not? After all, they are supposed to be male.

    *Penis (actual erectile tissue, not a surgically constructed "penis" made from a skin graft from the arm or another part of the body). Some biological males might have to undergo a phalloplasty because of trauma or disease, However, in this case, he is repairing an organ that he was born with unlike a FTM who never had a penis to begin with.

    *Testes

    *Epididymis

    *Vas deferens

    *Seminal vesicles

    *Prostate gland

    *Bulbourethral glands

    I hate to say this, but there really is such a thing as a male reproductive system, and it's amazing how all the organs are connected. This is, indeed, rather amusing because even kids in third or fourth grade know that boys have a penis (Willie, Wang, Weiner, etc.) and women get pregnant. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Male is not very precise at all. As evidenced by the fact that we apparently have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct."

    This seems to be what I said earlier. Biological male is clearly understood, and any socially constructed term of male is open for interpretation. I say that biological females who "transition" (surgery, and testosterone) are not completely male, and only have some outward physical characteristics of male. Some say they are fully male. Who is right?

    "Male is not very precise at all. As evidenced by the fact that we apparently have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct."

    No, we do not have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term and male as a social construct. This is a choice, and some prefer not to play along with this game.

    "When it comes to identity, the person who is describing their own identity is the one who’s right."

    Yes, I think I finally understand it. I can identify as anything, and because I identify as such and such, this means it's true. It's true simply because I identify as such.

    People can fancy themselves as anything they wish because wishing and believing makes it true.

    When I first saw the movie Avatar, I thought the Na'vi were the coolest creatures I've ever seen. I really envied these fascinating dudes. I identify as Na'vi because "the person who is describing their own identity is the one who’s right" I identify as Na'vi, therefore I am a Na'vi down to my blue skin and long tail. I must have been born on Pandora because I've always felt like Na'vi inside.. Identifying makes it so, and that is all we ever need to know.

    If I so desired, I could put a feather up my ass and call myself a chicken.


    ReplyDelete
  67. @ 8:52 PM

    So, you're saying that some people who can't get people pregnant can still identify as male, but some people who can't get people pregnant can't identify as male.

    @ 8:53 PM

    Do you want to identify as a chicken? Do you want to pay for expensive surgeries, ask your friends and family to accept your new identity, give up your current lifestyle and go live in a chicken coop?

    I guess if someone really was meant to be a chicken, they'd be willing to do all that.

    But nobody believes that. People here keep trying to compare being transgendered to ridiculous fantasies that no in the world are trying to live out.

    Taking a concept to an extreme that will never happen does not prove your point right.

    It's like saying "if we let people have abortions, then they're going to start killing their children after they're born too!"

    I also don't think you are sorry. Stop apologizing when you have the intention of disrespecting the trans identity. Just because you don't believe it's real, that doesn't mean you're not an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I frankly am a little confused and not sure how I feel about butches getting top surgery. I feel a little sad because it feels like I am losing something..I know, sounds selfish but, this is just my gut reaction. If you are driven to be as male as you can be, then who am I to say you are wrong? However, I will say I see a lot of young butches seem to feel it may be the answer. Not having a gender issue I have no clue if it's a rational option or not.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Lilly

    Hey, don't worry. Butch lesbians don't get top surgery. At least, I don't know any who do.

    FtM transsexuals are not lesbians. The lesbian community is safe and secure. Nobody's stealing them away. There are still a lot more lesbians than there are FtM individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Male is not very precise at all. As evidenced by the fact that we apparently have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct."

    Question: Isn't it true that many FTMs or transmen keep their ovaries and uterus even after they legally change their sex? Aren't ovaries and uteri female organs? Even if they get their ovaries and uteri removed, aren’t transmen born with ovaries and uteri? So, trans men are males, but they have female organs? Some transmen even get pregnant. For example, Thomas Beattie gave birth to three children AFTER she legally changed her sex. Am I to believe that males get pregnant because people say they do? This is how ridiculous the transgender narrative has become. It's getting rather bazaar and people know it, but we just pretend that it's true.

    "People here keep trying to compare being transgendered to ridiculous fantasies that no in the world are trying to live out."

    Certain people go to great lengths to live out their fantasies or delusions. We see it all the time. It’s nothing new. People are just getting tired of being forced to live in another person’s fantasy world. I for one am fed up with throwing logic and commons sense out the window just to appease people.

    This kind of reminds me of the all too common eccentric uncle who shows up at family gatherings a little too soused and proceeds to tell tall tells that no one really believes. In order to not upset anyone, we all smile and go along with the charade. No one really believes him. Instead, we just pretend that we believe what he is saying is true. I hate to say this, but here goes. Few people actually believe that Robert (Gabbi) Ludwig is really female, and few people believe that males have ovaries and get pregnant. We just pretend that we do to appease others.

    “…As evidenced by the fact that we apparently have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct."

    Again, we don’t have to differentiate between talking about male as a biological term, and male as a social construct. It’s a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Question: If a human is born a female child from the womb of a woman, and nurtured by a female, what is so repugnant about identifying as female? Why are biological females who identify as transmen so offended by being referred to as a female or a woman? Is being a female something that one should be ashamed of? Why do transmen feel so uncomfortable in their female bodies that they surgically remove their female appearance?

    People are hounded incessantly and branded transphobic for even mentioning the fact that a biological female can never completely be male, and that males father children and women have ovaries and uteri. However, no one is ever allowed to ask the question whether or not internalized misogyny might play a role in a biological female’s decision to “transition” (surgically remove the appearance of female).

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ 3:22

    Yes, oh my god, you have convinced me with your superior logic. Clearly everything I've ever felt or believed is bullshit and I need to bow to the wisdom of people who have no idea how I feel or what I'm experiencing.

    I will stop taking the testosterone that has made me happy after years of crippling depression.

    I will immediately cancel the top surgery I have scheduled and continue to have large, ponderous breasts that I don't identify with.

    I will tell all my family, friends and coworkers who have showed me love and support to just forget it, that all this was just a fantasy, and that they were totally wrong to be kind to me through my transitioning.

    Man, where were you when I went through all the pain of coming out as bi? You could have just told me that was all bullshit too and I'd be a good little straight girl now.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @3:38 PM

    Transmen don't generally think that females are repugnant (there are misogynist transmen, they are a minority).

    They're offended because they've asked to be recognized as male, and people aren't doing it.

    If a stranger does it, 90% of us shrug it off.

    What's really offensive is when groups of people who should know better, because they at least know what being transgendered means, continue to refuse to acknowlege our gender and try to convince us we're jerks for asking to be called by a certain pronoun.

    And bullshit, you ask the question about whether internalized misogyny plays a role in transitioning constantly. Even when that's not the topic of conversation you ask it over and over and over. And people respond to you. We offer information, we offer feelings, we offer opinions. We talk to you.

    And then you ask the exact same question, without acknowledging all the conversations about it at all.

    Here's the real fantasy: the idea that you're not allowed to talk about something when you don't ever fucking stop talking about it.

    You're transphobic because you don't respect pronouns.

    You're transphobic because you call transpeople stupid, delusional, pitiful, and ugly.

    You're transphobic because you stereotype all transpeople based on the experiences and actions of a small handful, accusing us of hating women, accusing us of being perverts and rapists.

    You're transphobic because you want to take away our rights to transition.

    You are not transphobic for asking questions. You are transphobic for not listening to the people who answer you and trying to come to some accord with them.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "You're transphobic because you don't respect pronouns. (I respect pronouns. Pronouns are great!)

    You're transphobic because you call transpeople stupid, delusional, pitiful, and ugly. (Yes, to delusional, but I stated that all human bodies are beautiful and complex (trans and non-trans, intersex))

    You're transphobic because you stereotype all transpeople based on the experiences and actions of a small handful, accusing us of hating women, accusing us of being perverts and rapists.

    There is not one iota of hatred of women in the following......

    http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2011/12/so-much-fear-and-hatred-from-this-trans.html

    ".....You are such a weak little old hag of a bitch. Get raped by a bunch of niggers you old crow."

    "You made this story up you fucking ugly OVER-THE-HILL sagging tits, fat ass ugly repulsive CUNT. You're just jealous that you're OLD AS HELL and can NEVER EVER transition successfully the way us young dudes do! We are the men you can never, ever be. Medical science, nanotechnology and genetic engineering is advancing in ways your tiny female, estrogen-dominant gossipy female brain can NEVER imagine. CUNT. And being 25 I will reap the benefits and you will just be a corpse. You're not even masculine, this shit you're doing here is totally female...gossipy manipulative psychological warfare. Why don't you take your fat, over-sized, child-bearing hips sagging cottage cheese ass back in the kitchen and cook your disgusting wrinkled, obese crew-cut trainwreck you call a "girlfriend" another Swanson dinner you useless OLD HAG. KNOW YOUR PLACE and stop treading on us. Stupid useless cunt. No wonder there is so much misogyny...it's because of bitches like you. Suck a fat one and get AIDS".

    SOURCE:

    http://dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.com/2011/12/so-much-fear-and-hatred-from-this-trans.html

    ReplyDelete
  75. More on you are transphobic....because

    ...trans are the most oppressed people in the whole world...and women had better believe it..

    http://radicalhub.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/communication_csw_un_brennanhungerford_08012011_.pdf

    Disagree with transwomen and they will make jokes about pimp slapping the nasty, radical lesbian, or type on their facebook that "a nice home run swing to the head with a 38-oz Louisville Slugger is more in order."

    Kat Pimps Slaps Transphobic Radical Lesbian Feminists

    http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/kat-pimps-slaps-transphobic-radical.html

    Mr. Anthony G. Casebeer, a former transgender “Anne Casebeer” was a second tier leader of the transgender civil rights movement active mostly at the level of state politics who resumed his “male identity” after many years living “as a woman”. As Anne, he was a founding member of TransFair Kentucky which later became part of the Fairness Campaign. Mr Casebeer took issue with Cathy Brennan’s co-authorship of a letter to the UN in support of Women’s Rights.

    “Pimp slap is not enough here: a nice home run swing to the head with a 38-oz Louisville Slugger is more in order. There’s no brains in her head to destroy to start with. It’s personal, and if I ever saw her in my windshield, I’ll be wiping blood off my white Buick. But I won’t be using the brakes.”.

    http://gendertrender.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/monica-violence-1.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ 10:02 PM

    See, that's my point. There is one comment you took from one person, and you are trying to say what? That all trans people are misogynists?

    I'm a trans person. I donate time and money to feminist organizations to fight sex trafficking, to provide girl's bathrooms in countries were many girls would otherwise stay home from school because they have nowhere to deal with their sanitary needs, to provide sex education to young women.

    So why aren't you assuming that all trans people do good works to help women in their community and their world based on trans people like me?

    ReplyDelete
  77. "...trans are the most oppressed people in the whole world...and women had better believe it.."

    Nobody said that. You seem to believe that trans people say that, but we don't.

    Get out of your own head and pay attention to the myriad of trans voices. There are hateful trans people out there. Very many of them. Just like there are a lot of hateful trans-haters.

    But when I think of the lesbian community, or when I think of women, I don't think of the people on this blog. I know you're the outliers. I know that your voices are the small ones, because they're voices of hate.

    The hateful voices are only louder if you decide to listen to them.

    ReplyDelete
  78. My body, my choice.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @ anon-December 16, 2012 4:24 PM

    I understand this post. It makes sense to me. If you have a desire to be smaller, slightly altered etc. this seems logical, realistic, honest. You make your point well. ty

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © The dirt from Dirt | Powered by Blogger
Design by SimpleWpThemes | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com | Distributed By Blogger Templates20