[Adrian]

Quote:

CIS is that an anogram, abbreviation, slang, pidgin or Swahili ?

Moderator

Quote:

I’ll answer the question here but move it later to a more appropriate home…as the question is not about the Libra affair!

According to Wikipedia….

Quote:

Cisgender is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual’s gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one’s sex.

In the hands of Trans-warriors the term Cis-woman or Cis-man is invariably used to refer to
a) people who have no gender dysphoria (e.g. a woman who was born female)
b) a person who therefore cannot possibly understand the cause of the trans-warriors.
c) a term of derision to put down the opinions of those people as being irrelevant or ill-formed.

Do you get the message? Don’t use that term round here please!
(GG – genetic girl tends to be less offensive to those being labelled)

The funny side of it all, is that by using this label to distinguish themselves from Cis-women our transgender advocates are implying that their gender identity and behaviours do NOT match appropriately.

I can’t comment on their gender identity – but perhaps their behaviour leaves something to be desired… but that is a subject for another thread I guess…

Willingly going off-topic
Amanda!

[Adrian]

Quote:

Here is the reported response from Sandee Crack, the offending persom in this pulled commercial,

http://lexiecannes.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/yanked-libra-tampon-commercial-actor-talks-about-the-controversy/

Yes, indeed… as Genderqueer (http://www.facebook.com/#!/non.binary.gender) posted on Facebook the other day

Quote:

If you’re easily offended, remember that there are people might be offended by your gender expression as well, and how do we feel about that? Oh yeah, we don’t usually care too much.

Of course it is OK and indeed our right for us to take offense,
but do we care what Sandee feels? – no of course not!!

I’m sorry, but I genuinely feel some sympathy for Sandee given the sort of thing transgender folk have posted on Facebook about him. We seem to be entitled to an opinion, but he is not.

If you don’t understand just read the comments made on the blog Christina gave…

Quote:

I hate to say the obvious, but the public at large will always consider drag and transvestism to be outrageous, morally appealing and reprehensible conduct.

Quote:

If it’s not safe or otherwise possible to transition, that’s one thing. Cross dressing as a means of expression is not.

Quote:

he makes some valid points. However, he does it by being kind of a twat from white male cisgender privilege.

I could quote more… but I find the image of gender diversity displayed by these trans-warriors sickening.

[Adrian]

Quote:

…..Let us allow others their rights to their feelings and not demand that others agree with our opinions …..

Christina,
This is one of my personal goals as well. I find it quite sickening to see the aggression and lack of empathy on so many internet forums.

That is why the policy on TgR has always been not to allow any posting that “..could be interpreted as a criticism of another member’s beliefs, gender choices, or lifestyle”. Granted it is difficult sometimes knowing where to draw the line, but at least we try.

And as the Libra thread shows, it allows us to have a robust and healthy discussion of potentially divisive issues.

[Adrian]

Quote:

no media portrayal of trans people should be published unless it is an unequivolcally positive one.

Virginia,

Looks like I have to disagree with you – because what you are proposing to my ears is censorship of the media.
If you are saying that no matter how we behave the media should only report about it if the message is positive. Then that is censorship.

[ul]I am aware that there are many instances where “trans” people do not behave in public in a way that presents a positive image of us – the Libra outburst is just a case in point.
[/ul][ul]I have personally observed transgender people acting in public in a way that could reasonably provoke others into reacting negatively.
[/ul][ul] I’m also suspicious that in some cases what is reported as discrimination against transgenders may in fact be just part of a bigger story that is untold.
[/ul][ul]And finally it seems that whatever image is portrayed there is always someone who takes issue with what is being portrayed.
[/ul]

It is no surprise therefore that I just don’t take the line that transgenders are just misrepresented angels who deserve a better press.

I think we have a real problem just agreeing amongst ourselves what image we think is acceptable.
And many of us have a bigger problem learning how to behave in a positive way in society.

I am happy for the media to portray the negative side of our community because hiding the truth is not going to help in the long run.
If we know what the case against us looks like, maybe we can work on improving our image and so our acceptance in society.
Its a visionary goal, but I think the alternative of rejecting everything the media says as unfair and discriminatory isn’t going to achieve much.

As you say…

Quote:

that’s just me – think what you will.

[Adrian]

Quote:

…

Perhaps what we need to consider is how the general public will perceive the commercial. From the comments on Facebook, and news media sites, the commercial has not done much to educate or generate any (articulated) newly found acceptance by those who have a negative perception of the gender diverse condition. …

Virginia,

In these times it is convenient to find someone to blame for the world not being perfect – and in this case you make a compelling argument why we should police the media to better portray the gender diverse (and any other minority).

But the Libra advertisement story shows I think that there are other significant factors affecting the public perception of gender.

Let us consider hypothetically what the likely outcome would have been had the advertisement been aired without any adverse public comment.
As you observed,

Quote:

Unfortunately, on balance and given the possibilities of stereotyping by the general public, the Libra commercial seems to not quite portray anyone from the gender diverse community (in general) in a positive light.

That is the issue I think. If no one had said anything the outcome would have probably been neutral. I have tested the video on two GGs and feel that any potential stereotyping would have been lost on most viewers. I also note that the quote Clare posted shows the actor involved felt deeply that the advertisement had a positive GBLTI message.

But what happened?
Instead we observe an outpouring of venom and indignation by gender diverse people on public forums.
Some claim to be advocates for the community, some are just interested in banging their own drum.
Frankly I am embarrassed to read their comments.
I associate with little of what they are saying, and their “arguments” seem to be poorly thought through.
In many cases what is said is more offensive to other members of the gender diverse community than the original advertisement.
And the public reacts predictably (and negatively) to such rubbish.

At least the script writers and lawyers at Libra took some time to check what they were saying.

So there is no doubt that the outcome of this episode will be negative to the community – but any blame for that I think rests with those who chose a public forum to name and shame Libra.

I’m not advocating “lightening up” – but rather “shutting up” – if you hear your own voice louder than the needs of the community.

Only when we can demonstrate how to portray ourselves positively can we expect the media to follow suit.

[Adrian]

Ok.

I found it funny (definition: I smiled briefly and my blood temperature didn’t rise).

I couldn’t care at all “what” the left hand person is portraying – as any attempt to categorise them on the basis of 30 seconds video would be an attempt to put “types” of gender diversity in tidy boxes – which is in my opinion a far worse crime than any Libra has committed. The fact that TransGender Victoria sees that as a valid thing to do is in my opinion quite worrying.

Some in our community apparently are unable to acknowledge the reality of physical sex. Though some gender diverse people may have an essentially female brain, no matter how much surgery you have to “fix things up” we can never achieve a complete female body. All we do is make ourselves more acceptable in a twisted society that only considers true male or true female as acceptable presentations.

I’m guessing here that those most offended by the advertisement are also those who have not yet reached this acknowledgement of reality.

But in the very act of making a big fuss about the advertisement they out themselves as being “different” from the women they seek to emulate. Why?
Because I would bet on the fact that few genetic women would find the advertisement offensive (that is if they even understood what it was about in the first place!).

If only those who fight so vocally for the rights of everyone to be a woman could divert their energy to a more useful cause – fighting for acceptance of gender diverse people no matter how they present.
Then perhaps the community would stop being so precious about videos like this one.

[Adrian]

Quote:

To me, passing is just sweeping the struggle for acceptance and equality under the carpet, and placing our own needs above those who will never pass.

I couldn’t have expressed my views better than you have done Virginia.

A major moment in my development as a person was when I realised I could just present in public how I wanted to be.

I too had nurtured the endless and impossible goal of being regarded as a genetic binary female. A goal that probably arose out of the reception I received as a somewhat less than passable crossdresser 20 or so years ago. But the truth is, it was just that, endless and impossible and a recipe for insecurity and self-consciousness.

Then I noticed that there were many women who I was trying to emulate who fell far short of the pass-ability standards I had set myself.
One was even my sister!
They weren’t rejected by society – so why should I be?

The degree to which people may consider I now pass is more a result of this self-acceptance than any radical physical change.

But as Virginia states, the more we as a community try to paint the picture that we all want to be passable women, the more we paint ourselves into a corner. We marginalise the significant number of people for whom “being a passable woman” is not their goal or not possible.

That isn’t to say that it is wrong, or unacceptable to want to pass..but perhaps it would be more sensitive not to assume that all TgR members in the forums or chat room want to be classified and accepted as being a binary woman.

[Adrian]

Moderator

Quote:

This is wandering relentlessly off topic….
please read the first post before posting…

[Adrian]

Quote:

Gender personality. Think and act like male or female. This part is transgender.
…

Core body image.
This is the mental model of the body held in the brain.
….
Food for thought

Yes, an interesting thought Vicki.

One of the challenges of debates like this, is that we can only evaluate interesting theories from our own perspective.
I can’t think how it must be to be a different person, and I’m sure if I did, I would be shot down with cries of “you don’t understand me”.

So, from the position of someone who sits firmly in the grey area, I can say that the way I think/act is neither the society stereotype of a male or a female – its just “me”.

So then is my mental model of my body male or female?
I’m not sure how I could find out, unless I develop a hate of some part of my physical body.
The weakness perhaps of the two parts model is that, if everyone has two parts, it isn’t obvious how to determine core body image separately from mental gender.

In fact, given this difficulty, I would propose that perhaps the mental image of the body has a causal relationship from the gender personality.
Why do I say this?

Well, lets assume that someone is born physically male, but the way they want to think/act (their gender personality) is stereotypically female.
What happens in their life?
Well, society doesn’t adapt well to people who don’t “fit in” – so the person will likely have a very rocky integration into society. This may cause depression, instability, difficulty forming relationships… and so on.. all the stuff of extreme gender dysphoria.

I would suggest that a likely outcome of this rejection would be to focus on what society uses to evaluate and pigeon-hole people – their physical appearance.
It wouldn’t be surprising, in these circumstances if the person developed a hatred for the physical aspects that stop them being accepted as who they are.

I know this is heresy to some, who see their core body image as a primary aspect of their gender diversity.
But from my perspective it fits.
The only aspects of my body I have developed a dislike for so far on my journey, have been the parts that directly get in the way of people accepting me for who I am.

More food for thought!

[Adrian]

Ok – back to a gathering of T’s….

well there could be a

a stack of CDs

a studio of TVs

a transition of transexuals

and with the number of cameras present
an album of transgenders

but what you will actually see tonight is

a celebration of the gender diverse!

[Adrian]

Bobbie,
Have a look here in the Wiki.

http://forum.tgr.net.au/cms/forum/F124/445-45

And if anyone has any new suggestions maybe it would probably be better to update the resource.

[Adrian]

The original article stated:

Quote:

Following her comments about a transgender friends in Glamour UK, Kelly came under fire from transgender advocates for her use of the slur “tr*nny” among others.

I can’t find any evidence that in this case it was GLAAD who was the advocate involved.
All the articles I have found on the internet point to it being one individual who launched the attack on Kelly using a blog she edits.
Do you have more information Virginia?

I stick to my view that the article posted portrays the trangender community in a poor light by attacking someone disproportionately (because they have a media profile) and gloating publicly over their apology.

I know GLADD is a great organisation doing wonderful things in the US,
and if they want to define political correct speak in the USA so be it.

But they have no representation from Australia, and neither do they claim to represent world opinion.
So there is no reason to adopt their political correctness here any more than we have to adopt their spelling.
Australia is mature, different and independent enough to make our own minds up about the best way to bring about culture-change in our society.

And I for one think that arguing about Tranny or worse still attacking people for using the term is not an effective strategy.

[Adrian]

Just because a few vocal transgender advocates (how do you qualify to be one of those I wonder) define words as offensive doesn’t make the word offensive to all.
Lets do some more research…..

As far as I can see the “advocates” here are one person Marti Abernathey posting in the “Trans Advocate” (http://www.transadvocate.com/kelly-osbourne-gets-called-on-her-anti-trans-rant.htm). Trans Advocate is just the blog she created… think Amanda posting in TgR Forums???

SO what did Kelly say….

Quote:

“Having to tell them (my parents) my fiance had cheated on me with a tranny who sold his/her story to the press (was the most uncomfortable moment). It was so humiliating. Everyone kept telling me that Luke was cheating on me, but I never believed them. It’s hard enough to get your head around someone cheating on you, but when someone is a chick with a d**k? Up until then, I’d always thought that the worst way to get cheated on would be with an ugly girl. Don’t you think? Because at least if they cheat on you with a gorgeous girl it makes some kind of sense. But men are different, I guess, they can have emotionless sex.”

Not too good eh? And I’m not referring to the fact that the “tranny” was more interested in selling a story to the press than advancing public acceptance of the gender diverse.

Well Marti wrote the following:

Quote:

While I think it’s horrible that Osbourne was cheated on, her hate filled rant that used some of the most objectifying and dehumanizing words is even worse. She’s implying that the trans woman in question has no value, other than sex. That you’d have to have “emotionless sex” with a trans woman.

Really…some of the most objectifying and dehumanizing words possible? – well C-with-a-D might fit that category… but Tranny really doesn’t score on that scale. And is this a “hate filled rant” about trans people? – well there is hate there, but I think it is more hate about her fiance’s actions

Get real … so we have to change all our terminology because one very upset girl vents somewhere on the internet about what her fiance had been doing????

I see evidence that many gender diverse people don’t share the view that Tranny is a slur, “derogatory and hurtful”. If we banned every word that caused pain to someone in the world we would be left with such a politically correct anaemic language that life would be much poorer for everyone. That’s not a cause I’m going to fight for.

So why is Marti’s view so much more important than mine that it deserves this attention? And how does Marti feel about her bio that states

Quote:

She’s been a part of various internet radio ventures such as TSR Live!, The T-Party, and The Radical Trannies, to name a few.

Did I see the most objectifying and dehumanizing word “Trannie” in the advocates bio…

Marti finishes her (hate filled?) rant at Kelly with these words:

Quote:

And cispeople, you don’t get to tell transpeople what is and isn’t offensive and dehumanizing language either.

.
So where do I post on the internet to tell Marti that I don’t want her telling me what is and isn’t offensive either?

BTW: I’ve moved this to labels…because that I think is what the post is about

[Adrian]

November 2011
9 girls.. several ‘new’ faces and a fun, warm night.

And we all fitted in the picture.

Thanks to Kristen as usual for the camera and Katie (our ‘regular’ waitress) for taking the picture.

[Adrian]

Quote:

She had to be probably the only one I knew that could answer 99.99% of our questions, and answer with a caring face

Me, I’m less into hero/heroine/oracle worship.
Why?
Because not only do you need to answer 99.99% of the questions, and have a caring face…but you have to give the correct answer.
And on that last criteria I think most candidates have a tough time.

But we digress I think