Cock-free men?

[voluptuary_manque]

Despite the peculiarity of the idea, that seems to be just what an Australian court has legalized.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lots of that going around, yeah
Around the U.S. of A, it's one of them State's rights things, I think-- many states will allow a transperson to register a gender change, going either way. And since the surgery is still pretty woeful for FTMs, having a dick that doesn't look like a featureless sausage is kinda preferable... most transmen don't bother with the surgery.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

WooHoo!

I wanna move to australia!

I already wanted to move there, but now I just want to more!

 

[TE999]

So the guys can't use the urinal, big deal.

This reminds me of the old joke about a female detective called Dickless Tracy.

 

[estragon]

The law firm with which I share space is litigating whether a person's birth certificate can be changed as a result of gender reassignment. Their argument is that the person was male all along, but certain genetic circuits failed to close properly, resulting in a need to perform corrective alterations.

It is a States' rights thing, but there are broader (no pun intended) civil rights issues as well.

 

[SevenSquared]

I remember my college student union operated on a system of self-definition. If you claimed you were a man then you were considered a man and vica-versa. That rule was changed in a hurry when some guy declared himself to be a woman and ran for the post of head of the woman's committee and encouraged all his friends to declare themselves as women in order to vote for him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I remember my college student union operated on a system of self-definition. If you claimed you were a man then you were considered a man and vica-versa. That rule was changed in a hurry when some guy declared himself to be a woman and ran for the post of head of the woman's committee and encouraged all his friends to declare themselves as women in order to vote for him.

Yes, there are dangers inherent in 'self identification." Likewise, though there are dangers inherent in setting up rules of authoritarian identification. Gender is fuzzy, and tricky, and some people are deeply uncomfortable with that.

Earlier this year, there was an incident wherein one particular transwoman, "W"-- who has always been a very problematic person, being a bully, a manipulator, fueled by narcissism and anger-- met and began a relationship with a transman, "G".

And exhibited abusive behavior disguised as D/s, and, eventually, raped him. In a hotel room, with another person present, so there was a witness.

The case never went to the police, because can you imagine what the reactions would have been? They would have framed it as "a man pretending to be a woman" who raped a "woman who had been pretending to be a man." But, in fact, that's not the kind of rape that happened. Abusive sex can be hard enough to untangle, without the gender issues.

This kind of thing makes some people very angry, because it is so complicated, and they hate trying to wrap their heads around these fuzzy borders of gender. And of course, it makes other people equally angry, because the trans community should all be perfect saints, because oppression and stuff.

But the fact is that "W" has been known for years as a "warrior" when she's bullying the oppressors-- and the community was willing to ignore those times when their loaded gun fired on one of their own. Rape though... that's hard to ignore.

 

[mynameisben]

Yes, there are dangers inherent in 'self identification." Likewise, though there are dangers inherent in setting up rules of authoritarian identification. Gender is fuzzy, and tricky, and some people are deeply uncomfortable with that.

Earlier this year, there was an incident wherein one particular transwoman, "W"-- who has always been a very problematic person, being a bully, a manipulator, fueled by narcissism and anger-- met and began a relationship with a transman, "G".

And exhibited abusive behavior disguised as D/s, and, eventually, raped him. In a hotel room, with another person present, so there was a witness.

The case never went to the police, because can you imagine what the reactions would have been? They would have framed it as "a man pretending to be a woman" who raped a "woman who had been pretending to be a man." But, in fact, that's not the kind of rape that happened. Abusive sex can be hard enough to untangle, without the gender issues.

This kind of thing makes some people very angry, because it is so complicated, and they hate trying to wrap their heads around these fuzzy borders of gender. And of course, it makes other people equally angry, because the trans community should all be perfect saints, because oppression and stuff.

But the fact is that "W" has been known for years as a "warrior" when she's bullying the oppressors-- and the community was willing to ignore those times when their loaded gun fired on one of their own. Rape though... that's hard to ignore.

If the LAPD had caught W and G in the act, they would have handcuffed both of them to the bed, emptied their revolvers into them, and written it up as self defense.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If the LAPD had caught W and G in the act, they would have handcuffed both of them to the bed, emptied their revolvers into them, and written it up as self defense.

I'd rather talk about the gender issues in this thread, if we can.

 

[mynameisben]

I'd rather talk about the gender issues in this thread, if we can.

I don't blame you.

 

[Handley_Page]

Yes, there are dangers inherent in 'self identification." Likewise, though there are dangers inherent in setting up rules of authoritarian identification. Gender is fuzzy, and tricky, and some people are deeply uncomfortable with that.

Earlier this year, there was an incident wherein one particular transwoman, "W"-- who has always been a very problematic person, being a bully, a manipulator, fueled by narcissism and anger-- met and began a relationship with a transman, "G".

And exhibited abusive behavior disguised as D/s, and, eventually, raped him. In a hotel room, with another person present, so there was a witness.

The case never went to the police, because can you imagine what the reactions would have been? They would have framed it as "a man pretending to be a woman" who raped a "woman who had been pretending to be a man." But, in fact, that's not the kind of rape that happened. Abusive sex can be hard enough to untangle, without the gender issues.

This kind of thing makes some people very angry, because it is so complicated, and they hate trying to wrap their heads around these fuzzy borders of gender. And of course, it makes other people equally angry, because the trans community should all be perfect saints, because oppression and stuff.

But the fact is that "W" has been known for years as a "warrior" when she's bullying the oppressors-- and the community was willing to ignore those times when their loaded gun fired on one of their own. Rape though... that's hard to ignore.

Interesting.
It's plain that Person A assaulted Person B and a crime thereby had been committed.

Why not simply book it as an "assault" (or violent assault, abuse or whatever) ? At then least "W" would then be liable to prosecution and a few lines drawn.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting.
It's plain that Person A assaulted Person B and a crime thereby had been committed.

Why not simply book it as an "assault" (or violent assault, abuse or whatever) ? At then least "W" would then be liable to prosecution and a few lines drawn.

A very good question.

But you know... the cops want to know what the assault was, exactly. You can't just say; "Well, I was assaulted! Violently!" There has to be corroborating evidence to the narrative. And once the genitals come into the story, and those genitals are not socially normative... out come the circus clowns and trapeze artists.

 

[Handley_Page]

A very good question.

But you know... the cops want to know what the assault was, exactly. You can't just say; "Well, I was assaulted! Violently!" There has to be corroborating evidence to the narrative. And once the genitals come into the story, and those genitals are not socially normative... out come the circus clowns and trapeze artists.

You paint a bad picture of the Law over there.
That said, I confess that it was a while before a bloke (who'd been sodomised whilst in a public toilet where he'd sought relief) actually went to the Police and said he'd been buggered. It was a while before they finished laughing and got him a doctor.

I take it Person B (the assaulted) did not get prompt medical help ?

 

[Stella_Omega]

You paint a bad picture of the Law over there.
That said, I confess that it was a while before a bloke (who'd been sodomised whilst in a public toilet where he'd sought relief) actually went to the Police and said he'd been buggered. It was a while before they finished laughing and got him a doctor.

I take it Person B (the assaulted) did not get prompt medical help ?

]And your bloke was male bodied, and male identified. "W" is male identified, but more or less female-genitalia-ed, for reasons of finance and surgical not-yet-effective-ness for FTM transformations, vis it costs an arm and a leg to get something that looks a little bit like a weiner if you squint in a dark room and certainly does nothing at all to feed the male ego or his lover's daydreams)

Even so, your bloke did had to fess up and denote the nature of the attack, right?

 

[Handley_Page]

]And your bloke was male bodied, and male identified. "W" is male identified, but more or less female-genitalia-ed, for reasons of finance and surgical not-yet-effective-ness for FTM transformations, vis it costs an arm and a leg to get something that looks a little bit like a weiner if you squint in a dark room and certainly does nothing at all to feed the male ego or his lover's daydreams)

Even so, your bloke did had to fess up and denote the nature of the attack, right?

I believe the Doctor did all that stuff.
I cannot recall the outcome of the incident, but I know it did set other men on the path to complain of being assaulted. There were a few interesting trials thereafter (this was before AIDs and all that).

Was "W"'s victim (still) a full male ?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe the Doctor did all that stuff.
I cannot recall the outcome of the incident, but I know it did set other men on the path to complain of being assaulted. There were a few interesting trials thereafter (this was before AIDs and all that).

Was "W"'s victim (still) a full male ?

Arrgh, I got my initials crossed.

"W" is the transwoman, "G" is transmale. "W" is (probably) what you would call a "full male" although you must know that the amount estrogen that a transwoman uses to maintain her state is a very effective block against erection and shall we say... completion.

Again, the rape was not Penis in Vagina, as far as I know-- because both of the principles are queer and do not default that way.

And right there is an example of the kinds of things the victim would be up against, having to educate the court. And the if court decides to be hostile against such shenanigans, as is very likely in this country... justice will not be served, but entertainment will.

ETA: so, I am very very glad that Australia has taken one step forward. because if someone like "G" can point to a piece of paper that says that his statement of gender has some legal backing, that's one tiny argument solved.

 

[Handley_Page]

. . ". . although you must know that the amount oestrogen that a trans-woman uses to maintain her state is a very effective block against erection and shall we say... completion. "


Forgive me please, but do I understand that, in the USA, the fact that an assault has taken place (presumably with injuries, etc.), is ignored in the search for what may be termed 'salacious detail' ? And is rape only defined as a Penis-in-Vagina (so what's an assault?).

And no, what I know about trans-anything is best written on a very small bit of paper.
I leave it at the surgeon's door and quietly withdraw.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In the USA, rape is contested by an assault on the victim's character. The fact that the victim is, in many people's eyes, a "woman" who is "lying to herself" about who she really is, will be occasion for much public comment, yes.

Most of us just want to live our lives, yanno? Queer people are the same way.

And I don't think this particular rape occasioned the kind of injury that can be seen with the eye.

I just now went back and re-read the accounts, and "W," who has been known to be a bully, on this occasion let her bullying skills shine. A weekend of physical and verbal assault under the guise of relationship bickering, which culminated in a sexual act.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In the USA, rape is contested by an assault on the victim's character. The fact that the victim is, in many people's eyes, a "woman" who is "lying to herself" about who she really is, will be occasion for much public comment, yes.

Most of us just want to live our lives, yanno? Queer people are the same way.

And I don't think this particular rape occasioned the kind of injury that can be seen with the eye.

I just now went back and re-read the accounts, and "W," who has been known to be a bully, on this occasion let her bullying skills shine. A weekend of physical and verbal assault under the guise of relationship bickering, which culminated in a sexual act.

Obviously a very unpleasant person!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Obviously a very unpleasant person!

Yeah... really, really nasty customer. Going through those old conversations kind of turned my stomach!

 

[Pure]

all this does make introductions, esp. over the 'net, a little complicated.

A: I'm a man looking to connect with a woman.
B: I'm a woman, let's talk.
A: Are you a woman with a vagina [WWV], or a woman with a penis [WWP]. I'd love it if you had a vagina, but don't get
me wrong, I'm open, and not penis-phobic.
B: I'm a woman with vagina [WWV]. We're in luck, I think.
A: Are you a woman born with a vagina [WBWV]?
B: No, I had it constructed, but it's functional. Maybe you'll see.
A: OK, are you a woman with ovaries, testicles, or neither or both?
B: With testicles; but the surgeon tucked them out of sight. And you, Sir, are you a Man with a Penis. I'd prefer that.
A: No, I opted to retain my vagina. I'm MWV, but I'm quite masculine. I hope that suits you.
B: I'm very feminine as a matter of fact, but I do have to shave (face) twice a day; would that be a problem?

---
of course we may expect that love will triumph. it knows no gender. nor anatomy.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

of course we may expect that love will triumph. it knows no gender. nor anatomy.

I'm sure there are many of those stories, but this one really tugged at the ol' heartstrings when I read it a couple of months ago, so I thought I'd share:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-..._transgender-rights-transgendered-person-love

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sure there are many of those stories, but this one really tugged at the ol' heartstrings when I read it a couple of months ago, so I thought I'd share:

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-..._transgender-rights-transgendered-person-love

because it has a happy ending?

That's such long odds, honestly. My partner of 34 years has always known that I am a "man in a woman's body" but it never bothered him back in the days when men were forced to remain in women's bodies due to lack of medical know-how. Now, though... if I wanted to transition, I am pretty sure I would have to do it minus my partner. I don;t have the strength to manage my own issues and his at the same time.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

because it has a happy ending?

That's such long odds, honestly. My partner of 34 years has always known that I am a "man in a woman's body" but it never bothered him back in the days when men were forced to remain in women's bodies due to lack of medical know-how. Now, though... if I wanted to transition, I am pretty sure I would have to do it minus my partner. I don;t have the strength to manage my own issues and his at the same time.

The happy ending is part of it, yes, but that's only a small part of it. It's the honesty she showed when she said that she cried, that she mourned her husband, that it took a long time to accept, that she was angry and ashamed. I think those would be hard emotions to admit, let alone work through and come out the other side of with the strength and dedication she did.

But mostly, I think it was this statement:

Counterintuitively, perhaps, it was my love and acceptance of him that gave him the strength to become on the outside who he was on the inside: a woman.

That's a powerful sort of love, one I hope I have.

It's absolutely long odds. It doesn't mean I can't find things profound every now and again.

And a for you, Stella. I'm so sorry.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The Beeb on a similar subject. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14459843