Adrian
Forum Replies Created
-
Moderator
Quote:Please note this thread is not about anything to do with hormones.The topic is “microgynon / Ethinylestradiol – is it safe?” and only posts that address that issue should be added to this thread.
-
Quote:The other thing is I have asked a couple of GP’s and a specialist if it can hurt you and all have given me a resound “No”. So tuck away. Sue
I think it would be prudent to point out that Urinary Tract Infections, although uncommon in the general male population, do seem to figure a lot in our community. Many of us who have suffered from this “women’s” problem DO attribute it to tucking (by reducing the physical separation between No 1 and No 2).
With such a small sample size and little honest reporting to doctors and specialists (I haven’t told mine) there isn’t going to be a medical opinion one way or the other. But I would advise girls who tuck to follow the same advice given to females assigned at birth (namely, keep the area clean and always wipe from front to back).
-
Great first post Kate… and spot-on location.
I totally agree with Dr B’s conclusion that for many:
Quote:an individual’s sense of happiness and success is directly parallel with the degree they have dismantled their male identity, not on their age, physical size, hormones, surgery, etc.I find that is validated by what I see around me in the transgender community.
-
Some eSeminar topic suggestions from the chat room last night:
Fashion: TransGender fashion tips, current fashion trends, colour co-ordination
Your experience in coming out the first timeGenerally… good topics are one where the participants can share experience and ideas
Bad topics are ones that invite participants to disagree with each other and argue. -
After not allowing guests to send emails to members (with public profiles) for a couple of years… I’ve finally got round to implementing a more robust solution.
From tonite the guest email facility has been switched on..but now all guest-to-member emails have to be moderated before they are sent on to the member.
The moderators will not approve any email that is clearly spam, abusive or offensive.If you get a guest email read it carefully.
In particular note that the email address of the guest may not be correct (so check it doesn’t look like a porn site in Rumania).
Also if you reply to a guest email you will be revealing your email address to the stranger.Note that member->member emails are still sent directly through the system without any moderation, and without the message body being logged.
-
Ok – to summarise
Looks like generally people think the e-Seminar idea has some mileage.
To go forward we would need to decide
a) when we would hold them
b) how often
c) some topics for the first few e-Seminars.a) is easy since I’ve added a new statistic to the statistics page which shows when the chat room is most active. On that basis – Monday nights or Thursday at 8pm would be the obvious choice…
b) how often…. well that depends how many topics are queued up ready to go…
Which brings me to c) – we need some concrete, specific suggestions for topics to get this off the ground.
As I wrote earlier they can be
Quote:.national issues affecting the community
.. organisational – with members of organizations presenting
..common interests like hair removal, makeup….
..topical issues… like fashion
..local issues .. like Melbourne social lifeSo fire away with specific topics please…nothing general please.
Something that would attract people interested to listen, or to contribute..
but not so wide open it just becomes another chat room! -
August picture thanks to Kristen
-
Quote:Quote:Amanda
I continue to support the concept while understanding the need for a “Interest Factor” the discussion re links is more technical than I fully understand however the “flicca” concept sounds reasonable.
The more that TGR can “Value add” to our members (some of whom are quite isolated by many factors) the better the community support is.I’d actually prefer Google Picassa for pics hosting and storage rather than Yahoo Flickr, since TgR already uses Picassa as the formal location for pics of its events.
Jenifur Charne
Picassa works for me as you can make the albums private…I can set up an album and publish the login/password in the forum . Obviously I can’t stop some feral member going in one day and deleting all the pictures… but it should work for a while.
-
Quote:With the transcript, where would it be posted on TgR?
Will we need a new forum section for these discussions?Jenifur Charne
I don’t imagine the transcript being for discussion in a forum sense. So any read only forum area will do – presumably in the same place as we advertise the upcoming schedule of seminars??????
-
OK – webcast was a word in my head late last night….
eSeminar? What else?And re-transcript – I think a direct copy of the segment is good because
a) it can happen semi-automatically. Summaries require work and lay the author open to accusation of bias. The more effort something like this idea takes to make happen the less likely it is to be sustained I think.
b) the chat room needs a bit of discipline to stop the idle banter that is common in the main room. Knowing that your trite 2 word comment is going to be distributed to many might act as a constraint.Any other thoughts?
-
I’m more than happy to explore the concept…my concerns are
a) that i don’t want to host a forum that allows members to post pictures of anything they like. “My house – I painted it yesterday”….”My car I changed the oil today”.
I’m very negative about the value of sharing the trivia of your life with others (yes i don’t tweet!!!).
So all I’m looking for is a rule of what constitutes something that has been “made, built, grown,repaired, maintained” (I guess it is the last two that seem to include many boring things!)b) And pictures that disappear. So links to external picture sites that go when the user cancels their account are a worry. For the events on TgR we use our own Google gallery….so if there is some structure to where all these pictures are located then I would be happy.
-
Here is the link http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html (what did you call me eFolk….do I like that ?? !!!)
And the text for posterity…
Quote:Little Franklin Delano Roosevelt sits primly on a stool, his white skirt spread smoothly over his lap, his hands clasping a hat trimmed with a marabou feather. Shoulder-length hair and patent leather party shoes complete the ensemble.We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.
But nowadays people just have to know the sex of a baby or young child at first glance, says Jo B. Paoletti, a historian at the University of Maryland and author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, to be published later this year. Thus we see, for example, a pink headband encircling the bald head of an infant girl.
Why have young children’s clothing styles changed so dramatically? How did we end up with two “teams”—boys in blue and girls in pink?
“It’s really a story of what happened to neutral clothing,” says Paoletti, who has explored the meaning of children’s clothing for 30 years. For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached—became a matter of ‘Oh my God, if I dress my baby in the wrong thing, they’ll grow up perverted,’ ” Paoletti says.
The march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid. Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, yet the two colors were not promoted as gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out.
For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.
In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.
Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers. “It could have gone the other way,” Paoletti says.
So the baby boomers were raised in gender-specific clothing. Boys dressed like their fathers, girls like their mothers. Girls had to wear dresses to school, though unadorned styles and tomboy play clothes were acceptable.
When the women’s liberation movement arrived in the mid-1960s, with its anti-feminine, anti-fashion message, the unisex look became the rage—but completely reversed from the time of young Franklin Roosevelt. Now young girls were dressing in masculine—or at least unfeminine—styles, devoid of gender hints. Paoletti found that in the 1970s, the Sears, Roebuck catalog pictured no pink toddler clothing for two years.
“One of the ways [feminists] thought that girls were kind of lured into subservient roles as women is through clothing,” says Paoletti. “ ‘If we dress our girls more like boys and less like frilly little girls . . . they are going to have more options and feel freer to be active.’ ”
John Money, a sexual identity researcher at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, argued that gender was primarily learned through social and environmental cues. “This was one of the drivers back in the ’70s of the argument that it’s ‘nurture not nature,’ ” Paoletti says.
Gender-neutral clothing remained popular until about 1985. Paoletti remembers that year distinctly because it was between the births of her children, a girl in ’82 and a boy in ’86. “All of a sudden it wasn’t just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a teddy bear holding a football,” she says. Disposable diapers were manufactured in pink and blue.
Prenatal testing was a big reason for the change. Expectant parents learned the sex of their unborn baby and then went shopping for “girl” or “boy” merchandise. (“The more you individualize clothing, the more you can sell,” Paoletti says.) The pink fad spread from sleepers and crib sheets to big-ticket items such as strollers, car seats and riding toys. Affluent parents could conceivably decorate for baby No. 1, a girl, and start all over when the next child was a boy.
Some young mothers who grew up in the 1980s deprived of pinks, lace, long hair and Barbies, Paoletti suggests, rejected the unisex look for their own daughters. “Even if they are still feminists, they are perceiving those things in a different light than the baby boomer feminists did,” she says. “They think even if they want their girl to be a surgeon, there’s nothing wrong if she is a very feminine surgeon.”
Another important factor has been the rise of consumerism among children in recent decades. According to child development experts, children are just becoming conscious of their gender between ages 3 and 4, and they do not realize it’s permanent until age 6 or 7. At the same time, however, they are the subjects of sophisticated and pervasive advertising that tends to reinforce social conventions. “So they think, for example, that what makes someone female is having long hair and a dress,’’ says Paoletti. “They are so interested—and they are so adamant in their likes and dislikes.”
In researching and writing her book, Paoletti says, she kept thinking about the parents of children who don’t conform to gender roles: Should they dress their children to conform, or allow them to express themselves in their dress? “One thing I can say now is that I’m not real keen on the gender binary—the idea that you have very masculine and very feminine things. The loss of neutral clothing is something that people should think more about. And there is a growing demand for neutral clothing for babies and toddlers now, too.”
“There is a whole community out there of parents and kids who are struggling with ‘My son really doesn’t want to wear boy clothes, prefers to wear girl clothes.’ ” She hopes one audience for her book will be people who study gender clinically. The fashion world may have divided children into pink and blue, but in the world of real individuals, not all is black and white.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html#ixzz1VMs1HJNc
-
Quote:Quote:Acts and deeds are the measure of a person, not what clothes they wear.
I firmly believe this too, but I am sure that to many TgR members (maybe I’m wrong), this is an important aspect of their being. To me, clothing, make up, jewellery are just trappings and do not necessarily make anyone more female. But that’s me.
I feel a survey question coming on!!!
-
Time to yank this thread back towards the question Tatiana asked.
Although the original post was somewhat unclear, Tatiana has reposted and clarified the topic. So please lets stick with that one here!
(Which in Tatiana’s own words was not wanting to start a debate on what makes a man or woman)Quote:What I mean is maybe not just breasts or even just herbs, but the way hormones are seen to be the only real fix and anything else is seen as half a**ed and not making you a ‘real’ woman.I think that being a woman in your MIND is the key factor. The rest of your body can be changed to represent that is you see fit by whatever means you see fit.
Without wanting to start a debate on what makes a man or woman, I think that it is the mind, otherwise even with all the hormones in the world you would ‘still just be a man with a hormone imbalance’ just like a man with implants and even a vaginoplasty would ‘still be a man with a couple of surgeries’.
What I am, probably badly, trying to say is that I find it strange that though we are (transgender) inherently a bit genetically mixed up there is a view that we can somehow become perfectly ‘natural’ but only using selective chosen pieces of science.
-
I’ve moved this post from “Transitioning M2F” because I don’t think anyone would see herbs or implants as the key steps in making a change to living full time as a woman.
As to the “posts on this site have a problem with breast implants in comparison to herbs” – I think exactly the opposite. The position of TgR that is well documented in other posts about herbal breast treatments is that they are proven to be a waste of money, and no one has been able to disprove that assertion over many years.
My personal view is that any company peddling herbal breast supplements to those born male is a cancerous growth on our community and should be treated accordingly!As to breast implants… the forum posts reflect a high degree of “why would you want to do that” sort of questioning. I don’t think anyone is against the surgical procedure per se, but rather it is hard to see where implants fit into a personal journey. If you intend to live full-time as a woman, then HRT is probably the best step to that goal, and normally will go some way towards growing breasts. But if the journey does not include a desire to be a full-time woman, then it would seem that implants just make one a man with boobs. Something that personally I don’t really understand – but if it is something that would make you more comfortable presenting your inner gender then go ahead!
At least when you use HRT to grow breasts it is a gradual process and you can decide if it is going too far to “pass” as a male. To go to a surgeon to achieve breasts seems to be a sudden step to take with probably consequences one hadn’t envisaged.
We have been down this path before in viewtopic.php?p=15796&highlight=#15796 and I’m not sure exactly what ground this new thread can cover,