Ok, so I'm hoping my posting will be better than a silent group.
I'll try to go light on the medical stuff. It makes things harder
to say, and I don't know that it matters completely. If anyone is
tempted to put this whole post down as a fantasy- I can't stop you,
but it's not.

My whole life, I thought I was male. I knew I had two problems;;
(1) I was physically unable to have male . Sure, I could receive,
but it being like a non-experience. No pleasure value. Or pain.
(2) From about 5+ years ago now, occasional bouts of my gut feeling
like it's been ready to rip open, and blood emmanating from places
it shouldn't.
To make a long story short, the two problems were just two halves of
one problem. Being that I was never the male I thought I was. There's
no prostate in me, or plumbing. I've got something different in there.
I found that out for sure on 1/22/04.

Medical science can make male parts that look like they belong on
a horse; but they can't make it functional if it wasn't already.
Or I could get a -change, and maybe use what fate had already
given me. They make you try to change your social identity, and take
lots of estrogen. Ok.

The op will be coming for me in 2005. But by now I'm totally ually
CONFUSED.

In my past //
I've been attracted to guys, though not really towards str8 guys
(to whom I feel much resentment) nor much fascination with typical
masculinity.
OTOH, I hadn't had any desire for str8 women, and I don't know what
my opinion of non-str8 women was, because I never thought about that (?)

In my soon-to-arrive future //
I still like guys, but it's starting to look like the only ones left
on the menu will be the str8 ones whom I still won't enjoy, even though
they're being nicer to me lately. (some scars never heal ...)
Meanwhile, all the estrogen has been percolating in my brain, and
right now I'm not so sure how much I care which my lovers are, as
long as it was someone I enjoyed as a person and could respect. Which
would just be academic, except for one thing.
Very recently, I accidently discovered (whilst wearing a rainbow)
that some of the non-str8 women in my mundane life were somewhat ummm
friendlier than the last time I'd noticed. Which kind of surprised me,
especially because popular (mis?)conception has people like me being
despised in some circles.

Anyways, I don't know what to think anymore. If fate were going
to allow me any chance to escape a lonely existance, I shouldn't say
no.
On the other hand, "lesbian ts" is a horrible old stereotype of
old dogs who refuse new tricks, and I'd never in a million years want
to be percieved like that.

And I don't really know for certain what my future chances are with
any particular variety of person. And I'm seriously confused.

Please don't tell me to go to any of the (trans-) ng's. They're a
bunch of
idiots. And I hope I'm not like them.

That's all. Various opinions welcome. And maybe this is better than
commercial advertising, eh? :-)

From:	christina
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:19:43 +1100

On 14 Dec 2004 04:42:24 GMT, drgynfly@_.mv.com wrote:

>
> Ok, so I'm hoping my posting will be better than a silent group.
>I'll try to go light on the medical stuff. It makes things harder
>to say, and I don't know that it matters completely. If anyone is
>tempted to put this whole post down as a fantasy- I can't stop you,
>but it's not.
>

>
>In my past //
> I've been attracted to guys, though not really towards str8 guys
>(to whom I feel much resentment) nor much fascination with typical
>masculinity.
> OTOH, I hadn't had any desire for str8 women, and I don't know what
>my opinion of non-str8 women was, because I never thought about that (?)
>
>In my soon-to-arrive future //
> I still like guys, but it's starting to look like the only ones left
>on the menu will be the str8 ones whom I still won't enjoy, even though
>they're being nicer to me lately. (some scars never heal ...)
> Meanwhile, all the estrogen has been percolating in my brain, and
>right now I'm not so sure how much I care which my lovers are, as
>long as it was someone I enjoyed as a person and could respect. Which
>would just be academic, except for one thing.
> Very recently, I accidently discovered (whilst wearing a rainbow)
>that some of the non-str8 women in my mundane life were somewhat ummm
>friendlier than the last time I'd noticed. Which kind of surprised me,
>especially because popular (mis?)conception has people like me being
>despised in some circles.
>
> Anyways, I don't know what to think anymore. If fate were going
>to allow me any chance to escape a lonely existance, I shouldn't say
>no.
> On the other hand, "lesbian ts" is a horrible old stereotype of
>old dogs who refuse new tricks, and I'd never in a million years want
>to be percieved like that.
>
> And I don't really know for certain what my future chances are with
>any particular variety of person. And I'm seriously confused.
>
> Please don't tell me to go to any of the (trans-) ng's. They're a
>bunch of
>idiots. And I hope I'm not like them.
>
>That's all. Various opinions welcome. And maybe this is better than
>commercial advertising, eh? :-)

drgynfly, I don't generally read this group but a friend mentioned
your questions to me and maybe I can help.

Firstly, I am a post-op TS woman, 54yo and now 3 years post-op. So
that gives you some idea of my gender status.

With regards to relationships, I'm not in one now. I was in a
relatioinship with a woman for 27 years, married for 25, with 2 kids.
We lived as a 'normal' couple, although I was desperately unhappy for
most of that time, but then so are a lot of other people. My wife was
the only person I had a ual relationship with. I never considered
having a relationship with a guy, wasn't physically attracted to guys,
but then wasn't really physically attracted to women either. They are
more 'aesthetically pleasing' but I never wanted to have with one.
My drive, which was quite strong, seemed to come from inside me,
seeking some outlet, rather than actual lust for some hot body. I met
my wife at work, we came together as friends, and then developed
physical intimacy gradually after that.

Since my transition, i have wondered about my uality. As I said I
never actually lusted for women. Nor even considered men as partners.
But I do like and would like a relationship, and if I find someone
nice well I wouldn't mind if we had together, like having a meal
together or dancing together. Man or woman?

At the moment Im exploring my ualiity. I wondered it I could relate
physically to a man, not because I thought I should, now that I was a
woman, but just to find out if I could. I arranged for a man to come
over one night, friend of a friend, we chatted for a while and then
had . Holding his body didn't cause any repugnance - felt
different from a woman's body but not unappealing. I can't say he was
a spunk, but he was fit, reasonably good looking, respectful,
interested, polite, intelligent, etc. so we 'danced' together. I
enjoyed it. And of couse for a TS woman it was immensely confirming
to be related to as a woman in such a direct and intimate way.

I'll be pursing relationships with men, but I'm not ruling women out.
After all i was married to one for 25 years. While I want to put that
particular relationship behind me, there is the possibility that I
could relate to a woman as easily as a man (although the man/woman bit
has the advantage of defining me as a woman in a more powerful way,
but maybe I won't always need that confirmation, when I'm more secure
in myself).

You mentioned the old stereotype of the TS lesbian, and you don't want
to be associated with that. But just because it is a stereotype
doesn't mean it isn't true for some people. Anti-stereotypes can be
just as limiting as stereotypes can. The best advice I can give is be
prepared to try things out, to find out what your gut reaction really
is. Don't deny the possibility of discovering something wonderful in
your life.

I know how hard the road you are taking is. What I have discovered is
that we are much stronger than we think we are. We survive when we
believe that there's no way we can. Do try to find a support network
though. You need to work on that. If you don't get on with Ts
support groups (and I know some can be very difficult people), there
may be other options.

christina

From:	Gwendolyn Alden Dean
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:42:07 -0500

christina wrote:

> (although the man/woman bit
> has the advantage of defining me as a woman in a more powerful way,
> but maybe I won't always need that confirmation, when I'm more secure
> in myself).

While I get that the experience you describe was reinforcing and positive for
you, I take serious issue with the idea that having with a man defines a
woman.

From:	christina
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 06:57:43 +1100

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:42:07 -0500, Gwendolyn Alden Dean
wrote:

>christina wrote:
>
>> (although the man/woman bit
>> has the advantage of defining me as a woman in a more powerful way,
>> but maybe I won't always need that confirmation, when I'm more secure
>> in myself).
>
>While I get that the experience you describe was reinforcing and positive for
>you, I take serious issue with the idea that having with a man defines a
>woman.

I'll be the first to admit that my experiences, thoughts, feelings,
etc bear little relationship to reallity. If what I say is useful in
some way, good, otherwise there's the delete button.

For the record., about one third of MtoF TS women (and I hope you
don't object to my using the term women, but if you do then just read
'people' instead) have ual relationships with women, about one
third with men and about one third not at all. I haven't seen any
statistics relating to those having relationships with both men and
women. Most of my Ts friends are in relationships with each other
(that is, 2 M2F TS women as a couple).

christina

From:	Gwendolyn Alden Dean
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:57:12 -0500

christina wrote:

> I'll be the first to admit that my experiences, thoughts, feelings,
> etc bear little relationship to reallity. If what I say is useful in
> some way, good, otherwise there's the delete button.

Oh so, you can post but you must not be argued with? It's not a read-only
newsgroup. You put it out, people respond.

> For the record., about one third of MtoF TS women (and I hope you
> don't object to my using the term women,

Of course not.

> but if you do then just read
> 'people' instead) have ual relationships with women, about one
> third with men and about one third not at all. I haven't seen any
> statistics relating to those having relationships with both men and
> women.

They definitely exist and since this is a ng about biuality, it's particularly
apropos here.

> Most of my Ts friends are in relationships with each other
> (that is, 2 M2F TS women as a couple).

The fact that you're aware of this makes your statement that with a man
defines you as a woman even more odd.

From:	christina
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 09:01:02 +1100

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:57:12 -0500, Gwendolyn Alden Dean
wrote:

>christina wrote:
>
>> I'll be the first to admit that my experiences, thoughts, feelings,
>> etc bear little relationship to reallity. If what I say is useful in
>> some way, good, otherwise there's the delete button.
>
>Oh so, you can post but you must not be argued with? It's not a read-only
>newsgroup. You put it out, people respond.
>
>> For the record., about one third of MtoF TS women (and I hope you
>> don't object to my using the term women,
>
>Of course not.
>
>> but if you do then just read
>> 'people' instead) have ual relationships with women, about one
>> third with men and about one third not at all. I haven't seen any
>> statistics relating to those having relationships with both men and
>> women.
>
>They definitely exist and since this is a ng about biuality, it's particularly
>apropos here.
>
>> Most of my Ts friends are in relationships with each other
>> (that is, 2 M2F TS women as a couple).
>
>The fact that you're aware of this makes your statement that with a man
>defines you as a woman even more odd.

Firstly, apologies for being somewhat terse about engaging in
discussioin. I was essentially attempting to provide my experience
for the OP to consider, given that I have some experience in her area
of concern.

Identity issues for transgendered individuals (and I include TS under
that umbrella, although I am aware that many people like to keep them
separate) are complex and intense. The suicide rate of TS people
(most authoritatively put at about 25 percent by Prof Milton Diamond
of the Universtiy of Hawaii) is some objective indicator of this.
Many people think the issues are social issues not identity issues but
I don't thilnk too many other minorities, some of whom are horribly
persecuted, have anthing like our self-harm inclinations.

I'm not going to argue this rationally because I can't. I can put a
good case for most things but gender dysphoria is not one of them. In
my experience, and I have a lot of 'normal' problems, it is in a
category of it's own.

However, some comments are in order:

Firstly, I was in a ual relationship with a woman for 27 years. We
had two children. This relationship did nothing to help me identify
as a woman. On the contrary, I was so emotionally distressed at times
about being in 'the male role' that I wondered how my body could
perform at all (ually). Maybe I'm just too sensitive to
stereotypes.

Secondly, most genetic females have little reason to even question
their gender identity as women. You could probably do just about
anything without it seriously impacting on your identity as a woman,
although I am aware that quite a few people are androgynous, so the
above comment may not be true for you). Transuals need some kind
of verification. Perhaps a really strong personality who was male
could feel comfortable with an identity as a woman without needing to
do anything 'physical' about it, but the suicide rate mentiioned above
suggests that most of us are not that strong.

Thirdly, my original statement was a bit qualified. I did say
*confirm more powerfully*. Men having with men doesn't cofirm
them as women. Women can feel quite comfortable with their identity
while having with women. They are already assured of who they
are. I stand by my original statement - a ual act between a man
and a woman powerfully defines gender identiy, even though there are
many other options available.

Fourthly, at one stage during my marriage, due to severe depression my
libido disappeared and we didn't have for about six months. My
wife eventually said 'We haven't had for a while' and I agreed.
She then said 'How can I feel like a real woman if you don't take an
intererst in me?' Apparently her having with a male was important
for her identity as a woman. Of course, not all women are like that,
but it does happen.

So, I was talking originally about the emotional impact of that
experience on me, not attempting to state what is right or wrong for
me or anyone else.

christina

From:	sev (Cheryl Trooskin)
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	18 Dec 2004 22:36:49 GMT

In , christina wrote:
> separate) are complex and intense. The suicide rate of TS people
> (most authoritatively put at about 25 percent by Prof Milton Diamond
> of the Universtiy of Hawaii) is some objective indicator of this.
> Many people think the issues are social issues not identity issues but
> I don't thilnk too many other minorities, some of whom are horribly
> persecuted, have anthing like our self-harm inclinations.

I'm not sure it's constructive to try to compare oppression between
minority groups. The "more oppressed than thou" game isn't judgeable
and nobody wins.

Suicide is a problem for minorities in general who feel pressured by
society to conform to roles that strongly don't fit, or who feel
invisible because they can't shoehorn themselves into those roles.
That's common for biuals, homouals, transgendered folk, and so on.

> Secondly, most genetic females have little reason to even question
> their gender identity as women. You could probably do just about
> anything without it seriously impacting on your identity as a woman,
> although I am aware that quite a few people are androgynous, so the
> above comment may not be true for you).

This is most definitely untrue. Queer women get our gender identity
questioned by society all the time, and for many people that creates
significant self-doubt.

> Thirdly, my original statement was a bit qualified. I did say
> *confirm more powerfully*. Men having with men doesn't cofirm
> them as women. Women can feel quite comfortable with their identity
> while having with women. They are already assured of who they
> are. I stand by my original statement - a ual act between a man
> and a woman powerfully defines gender identiy, even though there are
> many other options available.

Y'know, most trans activists I've spoken with are annoyed when people
conflate ual orientation with gender identity. They're quick to
remind people that, for instance, there's a difference between a butch
dyke and a f-to-m transgendered man when people who are so focused on
ual orientation start to view transgendered folk through a lens that's
wholly about queer theory. That tunnel-vision often shows a lack of
respect for those who self-identify as transgendered, regardless of their
ual orientation.

Similarly, I'm annoyed when people conflate gender identity with ual
orientation. I'd like to remind you that even if for you the two are
tightly linked, that blanket statements linking acts of heteroual
to gender identity show a lack of recognition of the differences between
ual orientation and gender identity.

Now, if what you're saying is that culture and society heaps approval
on heteroual and therefore, a heteroual transgendered woman
receives cultural approbation as a woman having with a man, that
makes more sense to me. But please do not participate in our culture's
oppression of non-heteroual identity by blindly sidelineing it as a
tool for confirming gender.

The difference is, at least in part, in noting *where* the confirmation
comes from. It doesn't come from the . It comes from the culture.

sev

--
*** sev@byz.org can also be found at http://www.byz.org/~sev ***
"There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous."
-- Hannah Arendt

From:	David Weinshenker
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:17:44 -0800

"sev (Cheryl Trooskin)" wrote:
> there's a difference between a butch
> dyke and a f-to-m transgendered man ...
> people who are so focused on ual orientation start to view
> transgendered folk through a lens that's wholly about queer theory.

The real (IMHO) and often un-asked question is what it means to be any
of these - i.e., a person of a particular gender (or orientation/style
etc.): what bits of interaction and perception are actually involved
in "being a real man" or "making me feel like a natural woman"?

One difficulty, of course, is that these meanings
may well be different for each of us, and another
is cultural conventions that try to tell us what
the meanings are "supposed" to be.

For instance, how much of one's self-image is bound up in one's
sense of being a "person of a certain orientation or gender" in
any particular case? And is orientation always, specifically,
toward gender? I know it is for many folks, and there's certainly
a "conventional notion" that it is, but I don't think mine is like
that, and it sounds like drgynfly's has been becoming less so:
> ... right now I'm not so sure how much I care which my lovers are,
> as long as it was someone I enjoyed as a person and could respect ...

(There's a big piece of my orientation right there: "someone
I enjoyed as a person"... without that, there's no interest;
no matter how abstractly admirable the physical aspect might
be... there's lots of nice bodies wasted on folks who aren't
worth spending time getting close with!)

-dave w

From:	Robert Cumming
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	19 Dec 2004 12:56:26 +0100

In article <41C50EF8.DF84D326@earthlink.net>,
David Weinshenker wrote:
> "making me feel like a natural woman"?

Just think how unbearable biologism would be _without_ the
Aretha Franklin earworms.

Robert

From:	David Feuer
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:31:23 -0500

drgynfly@_.mv.com wrote:

> To make a long story short, the two problems were just two halves of
> one problem. Being that I was never the male I thought I was. There's
> no prostate in me, or plumbing. I've got something different in there.
> I found that out for sure on 1/22/04.
>
> Medical science can make male parts that look like they belong on
> a horse; but they can't make it functional if it wasn't already.
> Or I could get a -change, and maybe use what fate had already
> given me. They make you try to change your social identity, and take
> lots of estrogen. Ok.
>
> The op will be coming for me in 2005. But by now I'm totally ually
> CONFUSED.

It's not entirely clear to me whether you are actually a woman (M2F or
not) or whether you are an intered man that someone /else/ thinks
should be a woman. Do you feel like you are supposed to be a woman? Or
do you just listen to doctors and do what they say? The language you
use makes it sound like the change is not something you are choosing
for yourself, but rather something someone else is choosing for you. Of
course, I could just be reading it wrong.

David,
home on winter break

From:	Rebecca Ore
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:59:35 GMT

In article <41c64792@news101.his.com>, David Feuer
wrote:

> > The op will be coming for me in 2005. But by now I'm totally ually
> > CONFUSED.
>
> It's not entirely clear to me whether you are actually a woman (M2F or
> not) or whether you are an intered man that someone /else/ thinks
> should be a woman. Do you feel like you are supposed to be a woman? Or
> do you just listen to doctors and do what they say? The language you
> use makes it sound like the change is not something you are choosing
> for yourself, but rather something someone else is choosing for you. Of
> course, I could just be reading it wrong.

I was wondering if the OP was inter, with the male surface details
and female internal details. I suspect that there are people who've
lived with that condition without surgery to assign them to one gender
or the other, and looking for people who were born with characteristics
of both genders physically would be better than trying to fit zirself
into being whatever where the surgery is self-selected, not proposed by
a surgeon.

Don't know of any usenet group but it's possible that some of the larger
urban glbt centers might know of support groups for precisely this
situation. http://www.medhelp.org/www/ais/articles/FORUM1.HTM might be
a starting place (quick Google).

From:	David Weinshenker
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:32:00 -0800

Rebecca Ore wrote:
> I was wondering if the OP was inter, with the male surface details
> and female internal details.

That's what it sounded like to me.

-dave w

From:	Rebecca Ore
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:10:14 GMT

In article ,
Rebecca Ore wrote:

> a starting place (quick Google).

And another site for inter support in general:

http://www.isna.org/drupal/

From:	David Weinshenker
Subject:	Re: Dazed and confused
Date:	Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:27:05 -0800

drgynfly@_.mv.com wrote:
> Meanwhile, all the estrogen has been percolating in my brain, and
> right now I'm not so sure how much I care which my lovers are, as
> long as it was someone I enjoyed as a person and could respect.

Estrogen does do that, doesn't it!
(But then again, I think that's my
natural state anyway: I'm not sure
if I'm exactly what they mean by a
"gender-indifferent biual", but
sometimes it seems to almost fit!)

-dave w