I did consider the “what would my mom have named me if I had been born female”. Unfortunately, my mother told me, when she was pregnant with my sister, what she would have named if I had been born female. And named my sister that.
Since it would be confusing to have the same name as a sibling, I decided that wasn’t a good idea.
The Governor has managed to reach a state of portliness at a fairly young age, and I’d like to leave it at that.
I’d like to add my name to the list of Dopers who find Eve quite fetching.
I also restate my willingness to travel to New York and stand under Eve’s window, serenading her with Dulcinaya while dressed in this suit of armor.
Oh, geez, I am so sorry you had such a horrible time with pregnancy nausea. Worse yet, the completely creepy, insensitive comments. I mean, sure, I’d probably say “Ewwwwww!” but c’mon - if I saw someone that ill I wouldn’t think “bulimia”, I’d be asking them if they want me to call 911. Hell, I’ve been known to give spare shirts to strangers who needed them, and if I had one that would fit you at all I would have offered. People are just unbelievable these days!
I wonder if this was at all like when my sister came out as a lesbian. She was expecting all sorts of fire works, but mostly what she got was “Oh…” thoughtfulness about past events “Oh, yeah, well, I guess that makes sense.” Because, really, looking back it was pretty clear she was “that way” from an early age. So maybe your bisexuality was something your parents suspected, or were dimly aware of, for a long time? And for the transsexuals, maybe some of the supportive family members were clued into something being different about you, even if they couldn’t explicitly state it.
I know in my sister’s case, although my parents were not happy about the revelation at first, she was undeniably so much happier being “out” that they came around to acceptance. It was a matter of recognizing that, simply, that is the way she is, it’s her nature. (In my parents case it also involved getting past their early programming about “perverts”) If someone has been chronically unhappy for a long time (and I can’t help but think this is the case with many transsexuals) and finally does something - even something extreme - that alleviates that misery it’s hard to argue against it. Particularly if you know and care for that person.
Now, that I’ve finally gotten hold of a picture of Eve all I can say is that she looks like a girl to me.
I’m not going to say “fetching” because I’m slammed way over to the heterosexual side of the Kinsey scale, but the fact she doesn’t ring my bell is also an indication to me that yep, that’s a girl. The only thing “boyish” about Eve is her jawline, and even that’s well within the average range for a woman, just a little more angular than many.
I’ve been somewhat interested in transsexuals not because I am one but because I’ve been accused of being one once or twice. I’m a born female with perfectly normal plumbing (indeed, I’ve had far fewer troubles with mine than most women) with, as I’ve mentioned, strongly heterosexual drives. But I’m stronger than most women my size, have a tenor voice, and a tendency towards chin whiskers and very heavy peach fuzz (this runs in the family, both the voice and the hair). That, combined with my tomboy hobbies and childless state has lead some folks to comment that perhaps my current plumbing configuration is not my original equipment (occassionally this is followed by speculations about pickle jars and keepsakes). Now, some of this is in the same league as the men who have accused me of being a dyke because I wouldn’t have sex with them, a way of getting me to do something I don’t want to do (and a very unsuccessful strategy in my case) but folks can be very cruel. I expect I’ve only experienced the very edge of the fringe of some of the nastiness a transsexual experiences, and it just ain’t pretty.
In truth, I don’t “get” transsexuality on an emotional level. I’ve never questioned that I’m a female, a woman. Intellectually, I know the phenomena exists. But, unlike many people, I just don’t feel threatened by it. If someone is driven to go through the hassle of the transformation and comes out happier on the other end - well, if you don’t own your own body you don’t own anything. I have concerns about desparate people being taken advantage of, or folks doing this for the wrong reasons, and other horrors that life can throw at people, but that’s more my issues with abusing people in general, not transsexuality in particular.
Lsura thanks for the link!
And Eve, you do look completely female (and a very pretty one at that!)
Have any of you told people at work (or do they know)? Or are they simply left in the dark about these things?
I have no idea if they know or not . . . I’m pretty open about it (have written Letters to Editors on the subject), so they might well know. But I work in a NYC magazine, and I honestly don’t think the reaction would be anything more than a slightly raised eyebrow and a mildly interested “oh, really?”
(I hope I’m not “fetching” as in, “Fetch, girl—go get the stick!”)
What did you tell your coworkers (of the time) when you had the surgery or at least began dressing as a woman? Did you change jobs, or were you unemployed at the time…?
liirogue, I transitioned between jobs. I did have to tell Human Resources at my first job post-transition because my name change was not yet final (thanks to a newspaper who failed to run my public notice as required, forcing a rescheduling of my hearing), and someone eventually outed me after several months to management and through the rumor mill, so I’m quite sure that nearly everyone knows. The only person at the company I’ve spoken to about any issue related to my circumstances is the director of human resources – and that mainly to discuss our medical and short-term disability coverage as it related to my intention to get surgery. (I’m contract now, so I won’t get the short-term disability, but I’m still on the medical plan.)
When I go for surgery, my coworkers will be told that I am taking a personal leave. My supervisor and HR will be told that I’m taking a medical leave for necessary, planned surgery and that I’ll be back when the doctor says I’m ready to return to work. They don’t need to know more than that.
I tell you it was interesting being one of her references. Recruiters were very confused as to why some called her him and asked me directly.
Interesting question for me - I’ve just graduated from university, and many close friends, including several in my degree program, have been told, and I’m sure some of the faculty have guessed (although they were never formally told because it wasn’t relevant to them).
However, I am starting my first job soon. I won the job through a government scholarship, but back when I was notified I had the job (nearly a year ago now) I hadn’t started transition or hormones, so the government have told the people I’m going to work for that they have a new female employee coming. I’m going down to meet them on Monday, and it will be interesting to see what the reaction is. I’m guessing they will either assume the government screwed up (although when all my referees continue to screw up the same way they might get a little confused), or maybe they’ll just read me as a rather masculine woman… in which case it will become obvious sooner or later. I haven’t decided whether or not to tell them in so many words, or when - I don’t actually start work until the end of January and by then I will look fairly different to how I look now. It’s something I’ll just have to feel out as it goes. At least, since I’m technically employed by the government, not the practice I’ll be working in, they can’t fire me if they don’t like the idea, and the government can’t fire me because of the anti-discrimination provisions in that territory.
If it weren’t going to be an issue (i.e. I was passing well enough by the time I met them that all the stuff from the government about me being a girl could be laughed off as a bureaucratic error), I think I would work there for a while and prove myself as a team member, and get to know them a little better before I decided, but I would most likely tell them if I trusted them. I’m not ashamed and I have no real intention of hiding my background, it’s just that I fear for my safety to some degree in a small redneck rural town. Stuff like in “Boys Don’t Cry” really does happen 
Working in the Chicago Loop, I have the opportunity to pick up an actual hardcopy of the Reader, the fine free weekly that introduced me to The Straight Dope lo these many years ago. (good lord - I just realized, I’ve been fighting ignorance since 1983! Twenty years already???)
By some coincidence, this week’s front page article is about transexuality: “Sex and Transsexuals”
I don’t have a clue how to access the Reader articles on-line - does anyone else? Seems to me a link would be appropriate, and perhaps fodder for more discussion.
If you can figure out how to link, please do tell us!
Oh, phooey, I found the Reader website, but apparently you have to pay for the articles (so that’s how a free weekly keeps the rent paid…)
Anyhow, I suppose I can give ya’ll the gist of the thing (ain’t no way I’m typing the whole thing in, even IF permitted) I also wish to point out that this in no way represents my personal view on these matters, I’m offering it as a point of discussion, should folks be so inclined (but please, let us refrain from throwing things, should the conversation become heated)
The name of the article is “Sex and Transsexuals” by Dennis Rodkin, the December 12, 2003 edition of the Reader (in case any of you wish to obtain this article for yourself later)
There’s this guy, J. Michael Bailey, who is chairman of Northwestern University’s psychology department who recently published a book called The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and Transsexualism. In this book, he applies the theories of one Ray Blanchard, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and head of clinical sexology services at something called the Clarke Institute, to the instances of seven Chicago-area male to female transsexuals.
In a nutshell, this theory says that all men who undergo the male-to-female transformation are motivated by one of two things: either they’re extreme homosexuals who want to be penetrated by a man as a woman is, or else they find the idea of vaginas so arousing they want one of their own, whether or not anyone else will ever use it. They even came up with a term for the latter - “autogynephillia”. There also seems to be this corrallary that the homosexual transexuals get their surgery in their 20’s and 30’s, but the heterosexuals with a vagina fetish (they say it almost that explicitly) wait until they’re 40 or 50.
Not surprising to me, a good number of the transsexuals interviewed for the book, and elsewhere, object to this conclusion. (There is also a MtF quoted in the article as saying that yes, she IS an autogynephillic who agrees with the docs) The transsex folks, mostly, say Bailey abused their trust and confidence, and he doesn’t understand crap. Bailey and Blanchard say these people are too close to their gender disorder to see it clearly or understand it, and because they’re experts in sociology and psychology they have the real truth of the matter.
There’s also some strenuous objections over where “autogynephillia” would fit in the DSM - apparently among something called “paraphillias”, and right next door to pedophillia. I will quote Bailey on this:
“Autogynephilia is a paraphilia - it’s in the same class as some bad things like pedophilia… I hasten to add that I don’t think there’s anything immoral or harmful necessarially about autogynephilia, But there are scientific reasons - it’s not arbitrary that autogynephilia and pedophilia are lumped toghether. There’s something similar, not in the harmfulness of them but in the fact that they are both atypical sexual orientations and they are both phenomena that are found only in males as far as we can tell.”
OK, now we get into my editorial comments:
Well, geez, so far as I can tell he’s only studying men (or used-to-be-men) so how would he have a clue whether or not this exists in women (or former women)?
Just from reading this thread, and what little I know about the transexual folks (which I admit isn’t much) this just doesn’t hold water. First of all, he’s completely ignoring the FtM transexuals which, although less common (apparently) than MtF most certainly do exit.
Also, from what little I’ve observed, it seems like being a transsexual definitely puts a crimp in one’s social and sexual life and, in the case of a MtF dating men, might even vastly increase one’s chance of being violently attacked if the secret comes out to either the wrong man or in the wrong way.
Seems to me (admittedly a het female) that anal sex is generally the way most gay men use to experience penetration, which has the added benefit of not requiring surgery or hormones. Maybe this isn’t adequate for all gay men, but it certainly seems to satisfy the vast majority. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there gay drag queens who dress as women pretty much most of the time but have no intention of trading their equipment in for a different style of plumbing?
Then we have folks like KellyM who are in loving and committed relationships even before complete transformation, and in fact is considering not having bottom surgery, essentially stopping midway between caterpillar and butterfly. If, hypothetically, KellyM was motivated by being “penetrated by a man” would she be having sex with a woman? (unless the male partner is involved, but hey, I try not to speculate on the bedroom doings of others, I’m just going by what I’ve seen volunteered) And if, according to Bailey and Blanchard, the only other motivation is possessing a vagina, why would she stop prior to the surgery to give her one? See, that just doesn’t make sense to me, considering what KellyM has said both in this thread and in others.
Bailey and Blanchard are also distilling everything down to sex-sex-sex. Truth is, people - of all genders - want relationships, of which sex is just one dimension (and an optional one at that. It’s important, but you can live a happy and fulfilling life without it). It reduces people to labels. It would be (to my mind) like reducing my husband down to a breast fetish. Yes, my husband does like breasts, he is fixated on them, but when it came time to marry he didn’t pick the girlfriend with the biggest tits because, looking long-term, even though big breasts were important they weren’t the only important thing, or even the most important thing.
Now, there may be people who are genuine “autogynephilics” - heck, there are probably people with a sexual fetish for belly-button lint - and however they want to satisfy their urgings is fine with me (with the usual proviso about all folks involved are consenting adults, of sound mind, nobody gets hurt, etc.) But if it’s JUST a matter of someone getting their rocks off by owning a vagina, why go through all the rest of it? Surely there is a doctor somewhere who would, for a fee, construct a vagina for such a man without needing to alter all his other bits and parts. If all you want is a vagina why bother with beard removal, growing or surgically acquiring breasts, hormones and their effects, etc.? Not to mention the social disruption. Why do all that when he could just get the vagina installed then go back to living like a man, no one the wiser but his sexual partner(s)? Or, if he’s super-autogynephilic* but still retaining his male equipment he can go f*** himself in the privacy of his own home. Which is almost what Bailey and Blanchard seem to be implying, with their mention of this being a “narcissistic disorder” and focusing on the sexual act.
If you flipped this over to the FtM side (which these guys never seem to consider) then by their reasoning the important part for a Female-to-Male is the phallus - but my understanding is that quite a few FtM’s never have bottom surgery, presumably walking around looking very masculine save for having a vagina instead of a penis and balls, or opt to modify a clitoris into a very large clitoris/very diminuitive penis and try to make the best of it.
From my perspective (which may be totally off base here, so correct me gently if I’m wrong) what seems to be important to transexuals is NOT whether the sexual organs are “innies” or “outies” but rather living as a particular gender, whether or not the genitals match that label. Hence the phenomena of a MtF transexual living as a woman, but retaining a penis for years, or a FtM living as a man, even marrying (where permitted), but never getting bottom surgery. Sure, if the surgery was less expensive and more effective (particularly for the FtM) this halfway state might be almost never seen, but the fact that a number of folks can stop halfway and be content strikes me as an indication that this is not just about genitals.
Geez, I’m getting ticked off at Bailey and Blanchard and this doesn’t affect me at all… no wonder some of the transexuals involved are peeved. Seems like another case of patronizing "experts’** waltzing in and telling people their too stupid to understand reality, what they’ve been calling “black” all along is really “white”, or maybe “fuscia”.
** “ex” - meaning former. “spurt” - a drip under pressure. Draw your own conclusions
Unfortunately it’s common. However, we are (on current data) just as common as MtF trans folk, it’s just that in the past many have hidden in the ranks of butch lesbians, or have passed without medical intervention. Also, as there was a dearth of surgical options available, many elected never to seek medical help.
Both Bailey and Blanchard are idiots. I’ve heard rumors that Bailey’s tenure is under fire over the gross breaches of clinical privacy and academic honesty that many people feel his “research” represents; I hope this is true.
Many clinical sexologists think the autogynephilia theory is either (a) total BS or (b) possibly true in some cases but clinicallly irrelevant. My psychologist’s impression is that some transsexuals may be autogynephilic, but whether a patient is autogynephilic has no relationship to whether the patient is an appropriate candidate for reassignment, so therefore autogynephilia is clinically irrelevant. (It should be noted that my psychologist is on staff at NMFF, and he is not happy about Dr. Bailey’s conduct.)
It’s my impression that autogynephilia is a clinical misinterpretation of the dysmorphia that patients with severe gender dysphoria generally have. Such individuals often have extreme disgust toward their own genitals (note that not a small number of transsexuals have died from blood loss after selfamputation) and often fantasize about what life would be like after they get rid of their undesired features. A clinical sexologist who has been trained to see fantasies with a sexual component and involving a contrafactual or unlikely situation, combined with current sexual dysfunction, as evidence of a paraphilia is more likely to interpret sex fantasies in a transsexual as evidence of paraphilia rather than evidence of dysmorphia. The fact is that, in the vast majority of cases, transsexuals with sexual dysfunction are experiencing sexual dysfunction because of dysmorphia, not because of a paraphilia. The therapist is just expecting to see a paraphilia, so that’s what he sees. It’s “Patient exhibits writing behavior” all over again.
Blanchard, who invented and championed the “autogynephilia” theory, is an “expert” in the paraphilias of sex criminals. He specializes in using the penile plethysmograph (a notoriously unreliable instrument) to diagnose and treat sex offenders. It’s small wonder that he sees paraphilias lurking under every skirt.
Bailey’s study was based on a ridiculously small group of obviously nonrepresentative individuals (as I recall, his entire study group were either prostitutes or performing drag queens; he did his “study” by trolling bars and street corners, basically), and was conducted unethically to boot. It’s shameful that he gets any attention at all, other than in criminal court, and I am more than a little annoyed that the Reader saw fit to give his tripe top billing.
Oh, and for the record, “get a vagina” is not high on my reasons for wanting surgery. If I go through with surgery, it’s for two reasons: primarily, to get rid of genitals I don’t want, and secondarily, to get a clit. (This is part of why I chose Dr. Brassard; his technique reportedly results in the most sensate clitoris of all the surgeons currently practicing.) So where do I fit in Dr. Bailey’s typology?
This is somewhat OT, but relevant in a way. Yesterday, hubby was watching NYPD (with Mark Paul Gossamer (sp?) Yuuummm 
) and one of the stories they had going on was this Cuban “doctor” that had been found murdered in his car. They brought in one of his patients, a MtF transsexual, who had been pissed off about the quality of work she received. It turns out the “doctor” butchered her and she killed him. But anyway, the reason I’m bringing this up was because one of her lines was “I just wanted to feel pretty for once in my life, and he butchered me.” How common is it for people to pass themselves off as doctors and do this sort of surgery cheap?
This is propaganda cleverly worded to mislead people. There are all kinds of paraphilias, some of them as innocent as a fetish for high heels or the act of combing hair. Pedophilia is just one of the more unfortunate paraphilias, and I personally disagree with their usage of the term as a “for example.”
Now I’m curious - is this actually being one?
It would seem to me that if a man has a strong feminine side, he might fantasize about being a woman, vagina and all. From that POV, having and using the vagina might be the highlight of the fantasy, but there is also the whole body image of becoming that which he is sexually attracted to (assuming he is heterosexual).
I meant to say, “is this actually being done?”
I just wanted to say THANKS! to Broomstick for that informative post. I almost bought that book the other day. I think I may still read it but I shall be better prepared for what it contains now. Gosh, I like all this fighting ignorance!