[Adrian]

I’ve just bought some ridiculously cheap clip-ons – all under $13 from an eBay store. I was expecting the quality to match the price – but in fact they are better made than some of the earrings I’ve bought in Myers.

The store address is
http://stores.ebay.com.au/chic-sophia

And I particularly recommended the crystal ball clip-ons – perfect for everyday use.

[Adrian]

Quote:

Noting the update to the chatroom software, would this make it possible to run the eSeminars in the chatroom?

No the issue was never technical – even with the old software. I bought the plug-in necessary – but ended up not using it…
because there was a deafening silence when I wrote:

Quote:

So to get this idea running… if you have topic(s) that you are prepared to be a panel member for please let me know. The topic can be one on the list above or a new one. Or you could indicate you are willing to be on the panel irrespective of what topic is chosen!

If we get a quorum we can try the first Seminar using the format above, and THEN discuss how we might change things subsequently.

[Adrian]

August 2013

[Adrian]

Can we please stick to the question Chantelle asked – which was very specifically about the Law and/or Regulation pertaining to HRT. I don’t want this thread hi-jacked by everyone on HRT sharing their personal prescription route – as that doesn’t tell Chantelle what she wants to know.
Follow the excellent example set by Lisa please.

[Adrian]

Thank you to Jane, Bridgette, Liz, Pamela, Adina, and Kristyana for sharing your thoughts on Empathy. I appreciate the feedback so far, though, once again, I realise with hindsight that presenting all three ideas in one posts doesn’t make it easy to comment. So let’s take a summary section by section.

Empathy and the real woman
There is general agreement I think with the position I made that that empathy is not a uniquely female characteristic. The argument I presented does not rest on empathy being only shown by women. The fact that there are examples we can quote of empathy in genetic males comes as no surprise – but it doesn’t illuminate a quest for any essence of femaleness.

We do have differing views on whether empathy would help anyone think or act more like a woman. I side with Kristyana when she wrote: “ Women who are not empathetic are usually described as hard nosed and cold”, and with Jane when she pointed out that men who display empathy are called out as “a big girl”. I personally find it hard to separate the societal role of women in nurturing and caring for children with the need for empathy as a talent to support that role. Many of us, in surviving a life of trying to fit in as a “typical bloke” may have learnt to suppress any empathy we might feel – a behaviour that perhaps we find hard to break out of. As Liz said – empathy can’t really be taught – but perhaps with some of us it could be “rediscovered”.

Of course, since we apparently have difficulty defining what it is to be a woman, it was always going to be hard to agree on what attributes help one be a woman! There is I suspect some merit in the suggestion that perhaps the woman some of us aspire to be is not the textbook feminine female. I agree with Jane that we need to focus more on humanity rather than a gender/sex-based view of the world – but unfortunately the MtF transgender community seems to be built on ill-defined concepts of “man” and “woman”. I can assure Liz and others that I was not suggesting that everyone in our community considers they are a woman, but the desire to express a more feminine gender is common. If we often desire to be “more of a woman” then I think it does no harm to tackle the conundrum of ‘what is a woman”.

Before we leave the views of genetic women to one side, Jane questioned if the woman that I quoted was describing a desirable characteristic for ‘women’ rather than a defining one. I can only reply by saying that, as it was expressed to me, it was both a primary defining characteristic and also was not a passive attribute. I have asked subsequently two other genetic women – and all agreed it was for them an important characteristic – though there was not agreement as to whether it was empathy actively displayed or internally felt. I acknowledge it was a very small sample size, of people who were talking with me as a transgender. Its value to me is less as a scientific fact – but more as an opening into an interesting and I hoped illuminating line of thought about our community.

Where next? The feedback hasn’t changed my view that thinking like a woman might rest on a heightened awareness of the needs and feelings of others – but I can also accept Adina’s view that it might just be a desirable (rather than essential) characteristic. So perhaps the challenge is still to define what is meant by “like a woman”. I will perhaps explore the issue of “what is a woman” in a new thread – as it is far bigger than the specific issue of empathy and narcissism that I moved onto in this post.

Empathy in the transgender community
The issue of the visibility of empathy resulted in a number of interesting comments.
Firstly I accept the view that in professional circumstances empathy is not necessarily reflected in actions, and as Jane observed, such displays can actually cause problems for the woman involved. I have learnt (and then keep forgetting) that displaying empathy in my role as webmistress invites problems, and find it is best not to embrace the challenge of thinking in the shoes of 600+ other people, most of whom one has only met through the internet! However, the three scenarios I chose to test for empathy (internet, social, relationships) are not professional situations – there is no reason for not showing empathy in these circumstances.

My first scenario – the forums – does, I agree, tell us more about the way people use the internet than their empathy. As Kristyana observed “Empathy and the written word are not always easy to express”. But the forums are a place where I have seen people hurt, and so it was where I started my exploration. Searching for “sorry” was, I acknowledge, a weak surrogate for empathy. But when I look at other words such as apologise I find them often being used to obscure a lack of feeling – as in the posts that say “If this post offends then I apologise” (but I’m going to post anyway!!) – probably more a defensive style of posting to ensure compliance with the site ACP than a reflection of empathy.
Kristyana also questioned if those who felt empathy for others would ever find themselves needing to apologise. And Adina noted that “a highly empathic individual is far less likely to find themselves needing to apologise outright as they already see their opponents point of view“. This is I think a much more robust way of viewing empathy online – if one sees conflict and hurt then perhaps one can assume that there is a lack of empathy in the first place. I have no problem identifying so much that is said in an uncaring way on forums – and, yes, I do the same thing. I think the first scenario looks increasingly like a proven case of lack of displayed empathy!

In the second scenario I referred to observed behaviour in a social context.
Jane felt that is was unfair to suggest that some transgender people lack empathy because of a need to talk about ‘me’. But my scenario wasn’t “meetings in a transgender environment” – it was socialising in the real world. Of course it is fine to seek support at support groups or when meeting someone for a coffee and a chat. But the examples I used to build the second scenario were taken from restaurant meals and large social events – where perfect strangers were present.
Although as “one of us”, Jane accepts that “if a person wants to talk about his/herself then that’s fine” – it does not follow that all members of society are so inclined. We need to distinguish between other gender diverse people (who MAY be prepared to offer assurance to the insecure) and the general public (who probably won’t). It takes empathy to understand when “ME” is an acceptable subject of conversation. And I don’t agree that I’m showing a lack of empathy in pointing this out.

In the third scenario I linked a self-centred reluctance to compromise with the failure of so many transgender relationships. I am a very lucky person having a supportive family who acknowledge my gender diversity, but I know that I am in a small minority. These forums contain many stories of broken relationships and few, if any, recipes for a better outcome. In this context I’m surprised how little comment the third scenario has attracted so far. My observations, validated by socialising regularly with several other happily transgender-challenged couples, are perhaps a bit uncomfortable for those seeking to redefine their relationships on their terms alone. I think we should explore this scenario more to see if there are indeed clues to how we can improve the currently poor outcomes we experience as a community.

I see still strong hints of a lack of empathy in all three scenarios. Perhaps Pamela is close to explaining why when she wrote: “Most of us don’t really care about the needs of others unless they are important to us”. I think that pretty accurately summarises the lack of empathy I observed.

Finally Liz asked “How many ‘normal’ menbers of the community empaphise with the transgender community”. I agree that there are not many, but I disagree about the reason. I think that it is very hard to care for the feelings of someone who doesn’t seem to reciprocate. I think the problem is one where we can and should take the first steps.

Elusive Empathy
This section is where I drew a connection between lack of empathy and narcissistic behaviour. Adina was the only person brave enough to tackle this issue, acknowledging the tendency for us to all be selfish.

I have posted my thoughts on the split personalities that some people embrace when they first come out in the Transgender community. Pamela felt that “…you can have empathy in one area of your life and still be narcissistic in another.” And it is true, that if your life is spent moving from one persona to another, they can, and often do, have different psychologies. But I am strongly hinting here that the persona which expresses our true gender is more likely to be the narcissistic one which lacks visible empathy.

Of course if we identify with the characteristics of selfishness then one might look for an excuse why it is OK in the context of being transgender. Aida suggested two possible ways we might view narcissism as being OK.

Firstly it could be that you have to be “narcissistically self obsessed in order to survive transition”. I have known many transsexuals on their difficult journey and I believe that their frequent self-obsession is a cause of subsequent difficulties. Narcisim can lead to idealised over-valuation, to self-preoccupation, and to harsh and unjustified judgement of others. All are things that are unlikely to endear one to those who could help along the way.

Aidina’s second possible excuse is that “you must love yourself before you can love others.” This is a well worn cliché – and in the sense that it encourages the development of self-confidence it is valid and relevant in our community. But the extension to assume that loving oneself (narcisim) is something that should be cultivated before, and as a pre-requisite for, feeling for others is I think questionable.
“Loving oneself”, in my mind, is about projecting confidence and self worth. It isn’t about selfishly ignoring others.

Once again, searching on Google, I find that the issue of narcisim and narcistic rage is far bigger than the aspects I touched upon in my post. So again, perhaps a separate thread is needed to explore this aspect of our nature.

My apologies for such a long summing up – but I felt the quality of the comments so far deserved it. The process of writing my thoughts and hearing feedback is important to me – and I value hearing different views.

[Adrian]

Ok – let’s try again.

My post is I know is quite confronting.
It makes some points that I think we would all prefer are not true.
But that doesn’t make them not true.

If my post makes you angry then perhaps it is best that you do not comment initially. It is my expectation that if it is, as I suspect, close to the truth then it will be uncomfortable for some. It was not my intent to distress anyone, but on the other hand I feel we have to address the elephant in the room if we are going to improve the health of our community.

I’ve posted the article in the forums so I can hear as many views as possible about the points I raised. But please stick to commenting on one or more of the three points. Personally I don’t think the three points are strongly connected…but it seemed more compelling to present them all in one post.

a) Empathy and the real woman
– That thinking, and therefore by extension behaving, like a woman, might rest on a heightened awareness of the needs and feelings of others.

b) Empathy in the Transgender Community
– That there is little evidence of empathy in the forums
– That in real life we can be focused on ourselves in social contexts
– That in relationships we may not be willing compromise to respect the feelings of others

c) Elusive Empathy
– That the lack of empathy may stem from a tendency to narcissistic behavior

[Adrian]

Chloe joined TgR in April last year (2012) after a brief and stormy passage through Seahorse NSW.
During her time on the Seahorse forums I noted that she had contributed some well thought out posts about her personal journey.
With hindsight it was unrealistic not to expect conflicts to flare up again – by what she wrote she had a somewhat unusual background and a very opinionated style of communication.

Within a month sparks were flying in our forums and I tried to protect her learning curve – with the result others found themselves in the Sin Bin.
http://forum.tgr.net.au/cms/forum/F153/4821-821

I followed this up by meeting with her – partly to try and understand her better – it was Chloe’s first time out in public.
I was also concerned that it was her chosen gender expression (neither male nor female) that was generating conflict, and wanted to show her some support.
Chloe was apparently grateful for this, and in private emails was gushing in her support.

Quote:

Amanda, I think a lot of people could learn a great deal from you.
I didn’t know what a forum was 12 months ago & I learnt the hard way what a moderator is & how poorly they can manage a simple situation (SH).
I am not being patronising, nor am I putting you on a pedestal but I am truly impressed by the way you manage the forum.

Chloe became a very active poster on TgR and she also wrote me many long emails.
I tried to steer her away from more conflict.
It was clear she was very precious about her posts – and critical if others (including me) didn’t respond in the way she expected.
I became increasingly concerned that she felt no need to engage with others except through long and carefully worded written communication.
When she did attend the TgR Glebe cafe night she would sit and listen. It was somewhat unnerving.
As long as I acted in the way she wanted everything was OK.

But then in March 2013 I moved one of her posts which I felt was inappropriately placed in the forums.
That triggered a rage that totally took me by surprise.
Chloe wrote in an email to me:

Quote:

I pride myself on being honest.
I don’t however enjoy being ‘banished’ for it.
You talk of the desire for a team effort however if you go back & read your own posts you should also note that any posts that you disapprove of, you either belittle the person or banish the post. It is very noticeable to others, me included.
I have a lot of respect for a great many of your efforts but not your ‘big stick’ approach.
You probably feel that you have spared me your rod & that I should be grateful but as I said in a very sincere attempt to communicate openly & honestly on the weekend, you don’t yet understand me.
You thanked me for my honesty about Transformal but I’m guessing that won’t be the case this time; The only reason I decided not to attend TF is because I had hoped to participate in the talks but don’t believe anybody will get a fair run unless they say things that you approve of. There is no spite in that comment…it is an absolute fact.
I’m disappointed but I will not be involving myself anymore, I don’t need the grief. Unfortunately your reputation does seem to be justified.

The fact that I had moderated one of her posts resulted in a pause in her posting.
When she did resume I found many of her posts more extreme – without any real contact with other gender diverse people she failed to realise how unusual and unrepresentative were her own experiences.
I expressed my concerns publicly in the forums. And it was not long before I was being accused of targeting her in my moderation.

She wrote in an email (6/6/13):

Quote:

Has my most recent blog entry been buried?
I have checked all other unmoderated entries based on time of those other entries & there is no reason to believe my post has moved down the list based on the time of the last entry made to my blog, by Chelsea.
If anyone else even remotely hinted in the forums that someone was being dishonest or deceitful you would annihilate them. so why is it O.K. for you to do it to me? Your comments in my blog are not about Tg issues but rather a personal slur against me, inferring that I am dishonest.
As you have failed to reply to my requests for clarification on the forum I would appreciate a reply by email.

My reply (edited) was:

Quote:

In my opinion, your concern about reputation, people reading your posts, etc is very unhealthy.
I’ve never seen someone so obsessed with it. And forums aren’t a good place to build reputations – look what running it does to my reputation – well at least in your eyes.
Anyhow the front page algorithms are my concern… and I put it back to an earlier algorithm last night…because the blogs were getting too much exposure as compared with other non-moderated stuff. There is nothing in the algorithm that targets you personally.
As for all the hyperbole you so fluidly trot out now about me…if only you cooled your heels, put on the objectivity glasses, and actually read what I say – not what you imagine I’m saying in my role as “devil incarnate”. “Annihilating your posts”, “being banished” – just because I moved one low value post in the forums – and having set that pattern you just continue rolling out your “amanda hates me” mantra. Despite the crap you have written about me I don’t hate you..you are just on my “potential trouble” watch list. Hate is a negative emotion that saps the good things out of your life – but you seem to have it surging in your blood.

……..

But I won’t let your disproportionate responses dissuade me from managing the forum for the benefit of the majority.

Your repeated attempts to score points against me in long posts is getting quite tiresome.
You seem to value more how many people read your carefully constructed prose than generating a real understand of other viewpoints.
You certainly don’t understand me at all – yet you go for the sympathy vote by claiming I don’t understand you.
It is nasty, vindictive stuff, and unworthy of you.

We all have our life to get on with, and you are far too high maintenance to claim much space in mine at the moment.

Cheers
A

P.S. It was a big disappointment to me that you not only choose to NOT meet with a larger cross-section of the community last month, but you had to justify your position by smearing the organiser, and the event. As an observer, it would have been a valuable personal challenge for you and your ideas. But perhaps you don’t want the “devil” to be helping you any more.

It came as no great surprise that the first person to comment on my carefully thought out article on Empathy was Chloe. I wanted feedback, but not an aggressive point scoring type of editorial demolition.
The resulting series of posts can be read above.

Personally I cannot tolerate a situation where a member targets what I write with hate rather than constructive feedback. If I can’t post in the forums that I spend so many hours maintaining, then I might just as well close them down.
At times like this it becomes an issue of do we have the forum, or does Chloe go.
I have taken the decision to let Chloe sort out her gender issues in the way she clearly prefers to – on her own.

I appreciate that to some degree Chloe has been discriminated against because she doesn’t relate well to others in the community (including myself). Having met her many times – I still do not claim to understand her, or what she wanted out of her membership of TgR.

Chloe is sadly no longer a member of TgR.

Note: In these circumstances I would normally post all the email conversations I had had with the member – but in the case the volume of emails I received from Chloe makes this impractical.

[Adrian]

I am unable to complete moderation of this topic for the moment (being lost in a Win7 “upgrade”). It is unfortunate that the serious thought I put into this article only attracted thinly veiled attacks by some members. This is a situation that I cannot reconcile with my involvement in running the web site. I will fully document my reasons for the actions I have taken in due course and will then unlock this topic for a second attempt at gathering feedback.

[Adrian]

I was intending to wait to see the range of feedback on my article before suggesting improvements and clarifying points that I obviously failed to make clear.
But whilst I wait for feedback from others can I please ask that we respect the fundamental rules of logic.. If A is a member of B then ~A is not necessarily ~B.

Or in other words, look at Chloe’s last post:
If this view is correct then it would be fair to suggest that the opposite is true for FTM Tg persons. They could…..

The assertion I made was:

Quote:

perhaps it is safest to assume that empathy isn’t necessarily a particular and exclusive strength of genetic females. But also acknowledge that thinking, and therefore by extension behaving, like a woman, might rest on a heightened awareness of the needs and feelings of others.

I made no claim about the extent of empathetic behaviours in those who identify as male gender. If my assertion is true (something that is worthy of debate) it does not imply that its inverse must be true. I don’t think it is fair to suggest that it follows in this way.

And also when Jane wrote:
At the same time I have met and worked with many ‘men’ who (perhaps) don’t feel a need to don a dress and yet are most sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. Are they then ‘women’ without their knowledge?

Once again the assertion that being

Quote:

a woman, might rest on a heightened awareness of the needs and feelings of others.

states nothing about the empathy of ‘men’. Whatever sorry mixed state “men” may be in – it doesn’t challenge what I wrote.

I hope this illustrates why you can’t logically disprove a statement by disproving its converse… even though it is simple and often inviting to do.

I’ll save on the rest of my comments till some others than Chloe and Jane have a chance to reflect on what I see as a pretty confronting situation. But I’m hoping for more comments that address the observations ‘head-on’ rather than exploring illogical territory.

[Adrian]

Quote:

Because I’m not a big contributor to this forum, my reputation is now probably “bare feet”…………The most positive thing I did was remove all reputation based metrics systems and replaced them with a “thanks” mod which allows people to show their appreciation of a good post.

I know the help system is not a frequently visited area of the site…but the component of reputation related to posting has for some time reflected the judged quality of posts and not the number. Some of the people with the highest reputations have made the fewest number of posts. Quality not quantity.

But you also bring up an interesting point – that the reluctance to reply may not be just an issue for the person receiving the email – it may be that the person sending the email has no intention of striking up a long running conversation.

I know some people email members (particularly new ones) to highlight local related events and activities. Whilst this is OK – the outgoing emails are very much publicity and there perhaps isn’t an intent to start a conversation – something that I probably can’t or shouldn’t do anything about.

[Adrian]

Quote:

The simple fact is it only encourages replies and if messages are not forthcoming from others there is little value placed on you being friendly with others. That is unfortunate.

Kristyana, you are entitled to whatever opinion you want about the reputation system – but it isn’t there to allow people to score easy points by emailing all and sundry.

Just take a moment to think about what you are asking for. If sending emails to others is rewarded then everyone will just shoot off a hundred emails and there will be complaints about the spam within weeks!

Communication (what we want to reward) is a lot more than just transmitting. That’s why you can’t get reputation by reciting Shakespeare into an empty chat room!

My monitoring of the site shows there has never been shortage of people sending emails to others. The problem is that they rarely got honored with a reply.

Now, since you are indulging, in your own words, in a gripe – let me add some objectivity to the discussion.

Can I share that the system has logged you sending new emails through the web site to just 17 distinct members in the last 6 months. It would be interesting to know how many replies you received – looking at the logs I think just 4?? Which is the point I’m trying to make!

So maybe you are just looking for an easy way to get a reputation. And I’m the webmistress just making it harder for you. That’s the way it will probably stay!

[Adrian]

At the risk of stating the obvious… the article I wrote a long long time ago….started

Quote:

Many crossdressers are born out of a mid-life crisis that cannot be resolved by purchasing a fast sports car.

The article then went on to describe the commonly observed situation of people initially having two personas.
I didn’t at any time propose that the wearing of a wig, per se, was the cause of a personality change.

I could also add that I find that it is common that people who have gone past this stage will deny they every were like that. So could we please respect the scope of the original article in sharing any feedback – not about wigs – but about the personas we observe.

[Adrian]

July 2013 – Our third anniversary at Well Connected

Thanks to Annette for taking the picture.

[Adrian]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread, who has emailed me, or talked to me personally about the “value for money” of TransFormal.

Given the choice between
a) no TransFormal weekend or
b) a pricing that closer reflects the actual costs,
there seems to be significant support for the latter.

Of course the only way one can determine the extent of this support is to put the tickets on sale. But there seems to be enough positive sentiment out there to make it worth giving the ‘new’ sustainable TransFormal a try.

So for 2014 the focus will shift strongly to be on the Weekend rather than just the formal. I have no doubt we can make it another unforgettable experience, or at least worth a small increase in prices. I look forward to your suggestions and support in 2014.

Did I mention when?

I’ve signed the contract for the weekend 16th -18th May 2014.

Put the date in your diary!!

[Adrian]

This is the second time Erica has found her postings in the Sin Bin and she is currently banned from the chat room.

She has emailed me saying:

Quote:

Given your response Amanda – Adrian’s I am finished with the trans community as I am not trans any longer. From now on I will focus on who I am – female. Your issues are no longer my issues.

Erika

You can post this where ever you want as long as other see it with your last post

I accept that leaving TgR is the appropriate action for someone who no longer associates with the community in any way.

There has sadly been a recent history of issues between Erika and TgR starting a year ago with a chat room ban, and the challenge of subsequent emails she sent me. In the interests of transparency of the moderation process (and the trials of being a moderator) I am posting a summary below:

1st May 2012 – Erica was in the chat room with Amanda, Bambi, noeleena and Wendy_3.

Quote:

Erika was highly critical of Bambi and Wendy for “spreading their wares in front of poor people” I pointed out to her that her frequent talk about her operation and trip to Thailand was upsetting to JS who couldn’t afford such options. I gave her a final warning not to argue with what we were talking about in the room to which she replied…asking if I wanted to preach to her any more. On the consensus of everyone in the room I permanently banned her from chat.

10th June 2012 – Erica emails admin

Quote:

“Banned from the chat toom I see”

I replied:

Quote:

Yes, I’m not aware that anything has changed that would justify otherwise

On 18th September 2012 Amanda moderated a post Erika made in the forms that was off topic and questioned the terms and conditions of membership. This sequence is now in the Sin Bin
viewtopic.php?p=20837&highlight=#20837

Erika then emailed Amanda saying

Quote:

I have decided to take this as threat and I will be dealing with it as such. Please send me the details of your legal representative

I replied:

Quote:

Please detail the exact nature of the perceived threat, and I’ll advise who will be representing me, if such representation proves to be necessary.
I strongly suggest you sleep on it… and question what inalienable rights you have to post anything on the TgR forums given that the web site is privately owned.
I had been encouraged recently by the more objective and less self absorbed posts you had been making. Your new reputation reflects this. But it appears you may now have lapsed to the Erika of old.

To which she replied

Quote:

Retore my post as it was!!! Stop limiting my free speech!!!

Fast forward to 17th June 2013 when Erika emails admin saying:

Quote:

I would like to join the others in the chat room,.

It has been quite a while since I was banned. things have changed for me.

Amanda replied

Quote:

From my perspective it isn’t as simple as the passing of time.
I can’t be there to monitor the chat room all the time, and need a lot more than you are offering to be certain a lesson has been learned and history isn’t just going to repeat. Past experience points to “same again” being a far more likely outcome and so I am unlikely to reverse a ban.
So for the time being, and certainly till you think about what happened in a broader context, the answer is no.

Erika replied:

Quote:

I have decided not to ”prove” anything to you because I don’t have to – I am not a child and you are not in a position to teach anyone a lesson. Who do you think you are?

I suggest you learn how to move on and stop acting like a bully and quit carrying grudges. So I am not interested in dealing with you on this matter.
I have moved on and I suggest you do the same. Though I think you will never learn.