Savage Love Mar 8, 2017 at 4:00 am

Defining Decency Down


Donny @106: Let the debate end. Please.
Fan & CMD, that's what I was implying.
Nobody gets to define for others what heterosexual means.
DK-I don’t think there should be a debate. People can figure it out for themselves, the stamp of approval and classification by others is no longer that necessary nor strictly defined as it used to be.

Fun definition exercise
Lets say myself, a male-born, is having sex with a trans man while in my female persona.
Here are some possible definitions I came up with; others are welcome to chime in:
Possible me’s: straight woman, gay man, crossdresser, lesbian, straight man
Trans man: lesbian, gay man, straight man, crossdresser, straight woman

And if we live together, let alone get married?
(which reminds me: LW who was asked to throw away ex wife memorabilia- if the wedding dress is size 8 or 10 you can always send it my way.)
@99 LavaGirl: Thank you for brilliantly summarizing why I usually avoid bars, especially when out alone. Even though I did patronize the bar section of a local Mexican restaurant recently and nobody hit on me, I'm still uncomfortable in such an atmosphere.
I did however, get one consolation prize for that one bar visit: the discovery of kick-ass gluten-free fajitas!
CMD and Fan, if others wish to debate these subjects then they can debate these subjects. You guys don't have to join in.
I was referring to the debate about whether cat is the opposite of dog.
DK- that’s a tough one, I’m the maus.
How can cat be the opposite of dog. Is this a trick debate?
@113 Donny: I agree that cat is the opposite of dog. In my family I am the lone Garfield in a room full of Odies. Aaack-oop!
So I'm late in responding but it seems like people are missing the point when it comes to questioning the "straightness" of someone who is with a trans woman. Yes, many people have genital preferences, but being straight, the term "straight", refers to a preference for gender. That many straight men also prefer partners with vaginas is irrelevant. The point is that to be a straight man means to be attracted to women and trans women are women.

The original point was to challenge @12's assertion that sexual orientation, which identifies a gender preference, could exclude someone from being attracted to a trans person, which is a transphobic bullshit statement basically saying that trans women aren't women. It's not being straight, but rather a preference for vaginas that @12 is talking about. Those are 2 distinct preferences. Correlated, but distinct.

"I am a man that is exclusively attracted to women who are biologically female" is not equivalent to "I am a straight man."
My experience with oral is almost exactly like DMG. In the rare times over the last 40 plus years when Miss. N wanted this variety of play, something like 90% of the time it resulted in a yeast infection. This placed one more variety of sex in the category of "out of bounds". In my effort to avoid this occurrence in future, I recalled that many times wine -drinking was involved in the lead up to intimacy. I brought up this possibility, though no experiments were done. The ban has stayed in force. Can't say I blame her, I would hate to be taking a course of antibiotics on a regular basis.
In other news, my miss N has seemingly perceived me as more attractive lately. She is even considerate and nice to me after I was pretty much feeling like I was basically in our marriage by myself most of the time.
My theory? She has retired from work recently and perhaps spending more time by herself has made my presence at home somehow more desirable? Who knows? I shall report more as things develop.
I wonder about the wedding ring thing. I think if your marriage is open, and you're looking to have some casual sex, a wedding ring would be very off-putting to a large set of people, and (at least in my case) exactly the ones you might be interested in. In other words, if it were me, I wouldn't want to be hooking up with people who thought I was cheating and were fine with that. So I would probably want to remove my ring. Now, a verbal reveal of the open marriage, at some point, would probably be a good thing--although if the event were obviously quite casual (one night after a bar meet, for instance, not a whole weekend or a more "date"-like evening) I'm not sure I think that would be critical. But either way, to get to the point of hooking up, you need initial interest and a spark, and I think a ring might prevent that.

I wonder also if the response is gendered. Are you wanting men to wear their ring because we all assume that women are interested in a relationship, and therefore should know beforehand that it's not an option? Would you feel the same about a woman in an open marriage wearing (or not) her wedding ring at a bar?
Liberal @117: The original point was that Aeros66 @1 was being a transphobic asshole who deserved a snarky slapdown. Which @12 seemed to interpret as an edict that all straight men are hereby required to suck trans women's cocks. Thereby revealing some insecurity about his own heterosexuality, IMO. (Though I did find the mental image of scolding someone's genitals amusing.)

SB53 @118: Congrats on the boost to your love life!

Ciods @119: I'm in the "ring not necessary, verbal disclosure necessary" camp, but personally, I feel that pretty much all rules applying to ganders should also apply to geese.
Back when I was married, I went out dancing with a couple of female friends about one night a month or so. I never wore a wedding ring (my "wedding ring" was a necklace I always wore, but no one stranger seeing me would know that it had that significance), but since I wasn't trying to pick up strangers, that was not an issue.

One night, some men were there in a group and each of them asked me to dance at least once. We were friendly, but not flirtatious. I noticed whether or not they were wearing wedding rings as I notice all kinds of stuff about people all the time.
Then when the music turned slower, one of them who had previously been wearing a wedding band came back out and asked me to dance. The dance turned into a closer one than I wanted. I looked at his hand and lo and behold, the ring was gone.

After the dance, he suggested we "get some air." I said, "are you letting your finger get some air, too? Is that why you took off your wedding ring?" He seemed totally taken aback--didn't think I'd noticed the ring earlier--and stammered something about being away from his wife on business and wanting to have some fun. He made it clear that he wasn't in an open marriage, but was open to having a one-night stand if he thought he could. I was pretty disgusted, because it was clear that he had decided to hit on me (who he probably thought was an unmarried woman, but I doubt that he would have cared about that), but he thought his chances would be better if I didn't think he was married, so he tried to deliberately mislead me. I wouldn't have been receptive, no matter what because of my marital status at the time, but I was dismayed that
(a) he was obviously so ready to cheat on his wife
(b) he was so obviously willing to mislead a stranger who may or may not have been willing to have a one-night stand with him in order to increase his chances of getting laid.

Some people take the idea of monogamy--even other people's monogamy--seriously and even if they are open to a bar pick-up, one-night stand, don't want to contribute to what they would see as wronging another person, even if the marriage is an open one. And truthfully, you can never be absolutely sure--certainly not on the strength of a couple of hours' drunken acquaintanceship--that the person who claims to be in an open marriage is actually in one.

I get there is a lot of caveat emptor in the dating world and especially in the world of bar pickups, and no one "owes" anyone anything. Some people might be more interested in the man or woman with the wedding ring; some might be less interested; some are concealing their own relationship status; some people in "open relationships" aren't really in open relationships. I understand that it's a crapshoot and that people lie to get sex. I don't expect that every stranger you flirt with in a bar should be given all the details of your relationship status and the rules that may or may not be established. All I'm saying is that I appreciate honesty, I try to live with it myself, and I believe in letting people make their informed decisions.
@sb53: I'm glad to hear that things in your marriage are improving, and I understand your wife's reluctance to oral sex if 90% of interactions resulted in yeast infections for her.
Just a point of clarification, though: antibiotics aren't used to treat yeast infections, and actually often cause yeast "infections," which aren't strictly speaking, infections at all and aren't bacterial. They are an overgrowth of candida (often Candida Albicans) which occurs naturally in the body and is often kept in check by the presence of healthy bacteria, which can be destroyed along with the problematic bacteria when taking antibiotics.
For some people, pro-biotics are a good option, either taken when taking antibiotics (to replace what's being diminished) or as a general supplement.
I guess my issue is this. Most people, I believe, equate marriage with monogamy. For instance, you might get asked "Are you married" instead of "Are you available for sex?" So I think you could make the argument that if you are married *and* available for sex, it's hard to communicate that (non-verbally! I'm talking about the communication *before* you start really talking to someone, the stuff that makes someone come over to you to start with). In some sense, it's a question of which you want to be initially honest about, the marriage or the availability. And since it is possible to remove a ring, but nonetheless be honest about being married after some contact and conversation, I think I'd vote for that, rather than wearing a ring, which is honest about the marriage but may well prevent honestly about availability (by scaring people off). (At least, since starting every conversation with "I'm in a open marriage!" seems unlikely.)
@123: How about the person who knows he or she is in an open relationship volunteer that information before the other person has to ask, "are you married?"

I don't mean that you walk up to a person and say, "hi; I'm married, but it's an open marriage." But maybe once a flirtatious rapport has been established, offer the information.
If you're wearing a ring, you may need to bring that info out earlier because the perception might be that you're intending to cheat.

I guess I feel like if you don't wear a wedding ring already for whatever reason, that's one thing, but going to a bar and taking it off seems kind of dishonest and sneaky to me.
If you're meeting potential dates through a website or app, you can have your non-monogamous status out in the open to begin with.
I don't know--I agree that wearing a ring might reduce someone's chances of success with a bar pick-up. But I guess I'm of the opinion that that's just an inconvenient reality that goes with being married and trying to have one-night stands. Do we all have to get every single thing we want all the time?

From the perspective of someone who's single and wishes she was coupled, hearing people who are happily married and in an open marriage (unhappily married is a different kettle of fish and that hasn't been what we've been talking about) complain about having to be honest with people upfront and how that reduces their chances of getting laid, it's a bit hard to swallow. There's a lot of whole cake-having and eating, too in this situation, and some of us would just like our own small slice.
We're not all owed all the NSA sex we can have. We can't always get everything we want. We need to be more gracious about it.
(Again, impersonal "you," impersonal "we." Not you, ciods.)

I feel that Dan really missed the mark on this one.

After kid #2, my own sex life went frustratingly badly. I kept getting UTIs and yeast imbalance, my hormones were all out of wack, my menstrual cycles were irregular, and I was tired and cranky from being up with kid #2. Sometimes I just couldn't orgasm no matter what he did and since this had never happened to me before, it was seriously frustrating.

Oh, and that bit of advice about going to the doctor and getting a prescription is totally useless. It takes time to go to the doctor - I have small children and a job and as just mentioned, I'm tired all the time. I don't have time to sit in a doctor's office. Plus, the drugs clear up the problem but they also make you feel like crap. That kind of recommendation is not going to make your wife enthusiastic for anything related to sex. Ugh.

Here's what we did:

Scheduled Date Nights. One night a week is my night, one night a week is his night and then a third night which is usually a quickie.

We put the kids to bed and then we both have showers, brush our teeth and husband shaves. On my night, I ask and husband is giving of whatever I want because that night is all about me. I usually request that he goes down on me, but sometimes I just want to kiss for an hour and then, if I'm feeling generous, I'll let him come on my tits. Point is, it's my choice. On his night, same rules apply where he gets to pick (within pre-established limits for both of us that we discuss over coffee and no where near the bedroom).

After we are done, I will turn on the bathtub faucet, squat under it, and thoroughly rinse my girl parts. I also pee down the drain for good measure. Husband also showers again after we are done so that we aren't passing any bacteria back and forth (and also in case we are inspired to go again). Yes, yes, yes. I know, it lacks spontaneity and whatever but it is amazing how much it improves my zen with getting up with the kids or any other of life's little intrusions to know that three times a week, I'm going to get laid.

Additional considerations: Drinking lots of fluids and eating a 1/2 cup of whole milk yogurt every day can also help. Cotton underwear are a must. American Eagle sells cotton underwear that are actually pretty. Avoid thongs - especially in the summer. Get a cotton nightgown and wear that to bed after sex, with no underwear or pajama bottoms. I'm making a guess here, but likely, your wife use to not bother with clothes post-sex whereas now that you have kids, she may have to get up in the night to feed them or they may crawl into the bed with you. While they don't care if you're naked, you and she might be uncomfortable with that. When the weather gets hot and swampy, wear loose-fitting clothing like sun dresses instead of tight shorts. Only ever wash with an olive-oil based soap (or something similar). It has naturally occurring vitamin E that helps protect the delicate tissue and it doesn't have any kind of anti-bacterial that might cause an imbalance in the good bacteria that should be down there. And finally, budget permitting, rent a hotel room every now and again (even if you can't stay all night because your wife is still breastfeeding) so you can have sex where no one need worry about disturbing the kids or listening for the pitter-patter of little feet running down the hall.

Good luck.
Yes, many people have genital preferences, but being straight, the term "straight", refers to a preference for gender. That many straight men also prefer partners with vaginas is irrelevant.

Uh, says who?

You seem to be adopting a definition that disregards the lived experience of straight and gay people, in favor of a definition whose main purpose is to achieve a political end -- with or without the consent of those whose experience you seek to redefine. (Without major hormonal intervention, transpeople smell like their biological sex, not their gender -- and do I really need to point out how important scent is in the bedroom?)

In my world, straightness is an attraction to the combination of biological sex and "performed" gender, with the former being far more important in most cases. As a kid I never wanted to get jiggy with Grace Jones or Boy George, but given the choice I'd have picked Grace in a heartbeat: Boy George may have been far "prettier", far closer externally to what I did want, whereas I don't find Grace's looks appealing at all -- but the smells and shapes of a biologically male body are impossible to miss, and a total dealbreaker. (And if you're a man attracted to the smell of a biologically male body, that's not the response of a 100% straight person, period.)

Trans people have a right to ask that they be referred to with appropriate pronouns, and to live a life free of violence, ridicule, and unwarranted obstacles in their professional lives. They don't have a right, however, to control how other people see them or respond to them, especially sexually -- and they don't have a right to call people bigots for not wanting to fuck them because they're trans.

And that really seems like the endgame here: a world where we have to walk on eggshells to placate a small number of transwomen enraged by the fact that, sadly, their male physiognomy rules them out as sexual partners for a lot of people, because they don't push the button marked "woman" in the sexual psyches of those exclusively attracted to women. It's not their fault that transmen have it much easier in almost every way -- including much better luck finding straight- or gay-identified partners who are OK with their trans-ness -- but it is their fault for not handling it gracefully. And if my circle of friends is any indicator, a lot of transmen are really sick of putting up with the entitlement and drama that comes with many transwomen, and getting tarred with the brush of their bad behavior.
I totally agree with @ 125, the language/labeling police force has indeed gone too far.
First they labeled you based on WHO you do it with, now the new commissioner insisting on knowing WHAT you do.

@125 Hunter. Yes trans women are women.
Don't you see that's implied in the trans gender term?
Bloody labels are gonna do us all in. Love who you Love and respect all human beings however they self identify.
And we all started out as females in uterus.
So there's that.
@nocute @124: Fair enough!

Of course, I think of everything from my perspective (like ya do), and in my experience, when I got married, I got hit on substantially less than before; I also moved across the country and got a different job, and for a while I think I subconsciously put it down to that as well as to getting older, but then when I got divorced, it shot back up. Since this was true in bars as well as in environments where I was already known, I can only assume the ring was the reason. That's why I was thinking that if I were in an open marriage, and trying to hook up outside it, wearing the ring would substantially reduce my chances. But your points are good, so upon thinking about it, now I will just imagine that I would merely have to change my game a bit: expect less to be hit on, and instead be willing to do more approaching and pursuing, which would (hopefully) lead to enough fun conversations where the "open" bit could be dropped in. Although it still feels tricky to me! Maybe that is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it situation, although my impression is that many marriages which are open are so because they are working *except* for sexually, in which case it feels less so.

However, I will 100% agree that in any online situation it's best to be up-front. I'm just sufficiently old-fashioned that I still can't imagine meeting people online for casual sex. In a relationship, some large portion of what makes it work is shared interests, humor, etc., i.e. stuff you can figure out online. But for casual sex (for me), the lion's share is whether or not you get that jolt of excitement in the person's presence. How do you figure that out online?! Since I find that feeling is relatively rare in life, I imagine meeting up with and turning down lots and lots of people, which seems dickish.

(I realize all of this is off-topic, I'm just thinking out loud.)

In something. God, I'm forgetting words. The other day I couldn't remember the movie name "toy story.. "seriously getting older is no fucking fun. But it does beat not getting older.
@Lava @131: Agreed! We sure seem to expend a lot of energy worrying about sexual labels, and it's not clear to me that it's worth the effort. Why does it matter? They don't ask you on forms!
Don't Tess With Mexas
Not sure I get you. The argument here is not about smelly trans women insisting on fucking you or anyone else. It’s about a man calling himself straight even after having sex with a trans woman, and some who insist he isn’t.
@118 sb53: I'm glad, too, (like @122 nocutename) to read that your intimate life with Miss N. is going so much better! That's wonderful. Congratulations.
@122 nocutename: Thank you, too, for helpful FYI regarding Candida Albicans.
@131 & @132 LavaGirl: Amen, sister!
@130 Hunter: Just a "Moderate Response"? We're well over 100! I kept my promise this week.

Okay--since Hunter has officially given his SL: Defining Decency Down Week in Review, I guess it's safe to go a little off-topic (those of you not interested can feel free to skip to the next comment in the thread).
Griz is down to her last 40 measures of 320 (m.280) in the first movement in her second symphony, and there is interest in the local music community. I can't believe what I am writing and hearing played back on my new headphones! More later. Music, Volkswagens and cats are among the best therapy I could ever get.
@136. CMD. It's obvious what Don't Tess with Mexas ( DTWM) is on about. Don't be a smart arse.
And in other threads this point was made by other xx women about having to walk on eggshells around xy women.
This needs to be a two way conversation amongst the women. If xy women want to be heard then they need to also listen
to xx women.
Don't Tess With Mexas

Again, I think Mexas was off topic but for the sake of women’s talk I’ll try and do my best…
I agree that trans people should be held accountable and don’t act like primadonas. I’m sorry that in this person’s (a man?) circles there are some who may qualify. I believe real friends should be able to tell each other in a constructive manner when it’s time to knock it off. Interacting with a trans person like you would with any other is the best thing you can do for them.

I try engaging openly with others while en femme, often signaling there are no eggshells involved. Admittedly I have it relatively easy in my fairly liberal circles.
I think people have the right to be intimate with whomever they choose.
Mexas also confirmed my own observation that while trans men certainly have their own challenges, in general they have it a tad easier than most trans women. I hope I'm handling it gracefully.

Most important, I’m not an arse as I’m a proud Spurs fan. It’s a British football joke.

And I'm saying that's his business, not yours.

CMD @140(a), DTWM@127 was responding to LL @117 and the word salad they presented.
Then DTWM followed on with some personal experiences. Don't see how any of their post was off topic, and anyway since when has that been an issue so late in the week?
DTWM has voiced a situation that sounds very worrying. I haven't experienced an xy woman trying to define how womanhood should play, and if I did, I'd be thinking that behaviour was sorta rude.
An xy woman can define her own womanhood, that's a given. Trying to make those definitions fit xx women, that will just get her sisters pissed off with her.
Hunter @125: How is Aeros66 "totally in bounds" for sarcastically speculating on CTOFA's sexual orientation, which was never the issue? CTOFA didn't write to Dan asking "am I still straight?" He wrote to Dan asking "am I behaving ethically by not disclosing that I'm married?" CTOFA seems to have zero issues whatsoever with his sexual orientation. It's some other straight commenters who do, and frankly, what CTOFA may or may not have done with his date's cock has absolutely zero effect on anyone else's sexual orientation.

I don't know whether CTOFA identifies as a Kinsey 0. For all we know, he's proudly bi. All I know is that if he does consider himself hetero, none of y'all get to tell him he's wrong.

Tess @127: "In my world..." Whoever said your world needs to include sex with trans women? You're entirely within your rights to fuck or not fuck anyone you like. Lack of attraction is not "bigotry." Haven't you noticed that women are allowed to call themselves straight without being obligated to fuck every man on the planet? Guess what, the same applies to men.

Any trans woman who acts like someone is obligated to fuck her is just as much of an asshole as a straight man who believes he's entitled to women. There are assholes of every gender. This is not news.
Hunter @140: "No one is insisting he's not straight"

Aeros @1: "I think the straight guy with the trans woman may not be so straight after all!"
Chase @53: "If someone with a penis who has sex with someone else with a penis and enjoys it ... they wouldn't be a Kinsey zero, by definition."
Gou @79: "Fact: Being interested in trans women indicates some fluidity of sexual identity. If you were 100% straight you would know this.... I am saying it's not straight behavior. Because... it isn't."
Hunter @125: "We don't know what Ctofa did with his pick-up. If he, say, sucked her cock, and he wants more, then yes ... this is behavior of androphiles, and a male androphile is at least partially gay."
Mexas @127: "If you're a man attracted to the smell of a biologically male body, that's not the response of a 100% straight person, period."

That's quite a few people insisting CTOFA isn't straight.
I'm also wondering where Mexas @127 gets their theory that trans women smell like men, as that's certainly not been my experience. Hunter, surely if you were spooning with someone who smelled male, you'd have noticed?
Edit @145: Whoops, CTOFA does indeed identify as straight, he states it in his opening sentence. Please delete my second paragraph. The point is that he is not questioning his orientation, so there's no reason why anyone else should be.
Hope my comments make sense regardless, not sure I’ll vote for @ 117 either.
I’ll vote for BDF though…

And it sure doesn’t mean hunter is off the hook: “Ctofa isn't calling himself "straight", he's questioning his orientation.”
You've seriously screwed this up.
@BDF I stand corrected. that was the original point.

@Hunter The "Language Police" bit is getting old. The way we describe people is very important. Implying that trans women aren't women isn't some trivial thing. Having a legitimate discussion around that point is great - dismissing people with opposing viewpoints offhand a la Bill O'Reiley is not so great.

To everyone who thinks being attracted to a woman with a penis makes someone not entirely straight - at least acknowledge that you are implying that trans women are not entirely women. You can hold that opinion if you like, but I think you do a real disservice to the trans community by doing so. If we're going to make a real space for trans people in our society, it can't be as some kind of "other" that requires special bathrooms and special gender preference terms. If trans women are not entirely women and trans men are not entirely men, then I think we condemn them to a life of "otherness".
Hunter @150: Having, for example, a crush fetish is also not "typical straight male behaviour." Does this mean that men with unusual fetishes are not straight?

Or does it mean that there is room within the definition of "heterosexual" that allows for variations in preference?

If oral sex is the defining factor, there are self-identified straight men who won't engage in cunnilingus. Are they not straight? What about men who enjoy being pegged, but only by women? What about someone who has not yet had sex, but would like to?

I'm sure there are many, many women who have gone home with a man only to find out that his genitals are not what she expected, in the sense that they're much smaller than she'd like. But she has sex with him anyway, regardless of not liking his genitals, because she enjoys his company and the other sexual acts that they can engage in. If she doesn't like his penis, does this make her a lesbian?

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous it is to define sexual orientation based on what acts one has or has not engaged in?
I guess I have nothing to add to this DDD thread, and am just reading comments at this point. I will touch base with Dan and all of you later at the next Savage Love column session.
Oh hunter, I’m sure most of us would have let it go peacefully had you wrote something like, “Sorry folks, it was midnight Baltimore time when I wrote it. Admittedly I had couple of drinks earlier, which is not an excuse as I take full responsibility for my actions. I’m aware I wrote some silly lines and so sorry it caused some of you to see red. You know it’s not my style, I’ve never done anything like it before, and promise to behave from now on.”

Yet here we are once again, re-redefining others while discussing needles and pins and kinseys
So virgins have no sexual orientation?

Activity does not define orientation. Desire defines orientation. CTOFA desires women. Only women. Cis women and trans women. CTOFA is entitled to identify as straight.

Activity may present evidence of someone's orientation. If someone has sex with both men and women, they are probably bisexual. But CTOFA has only had sexual activity with women. Cis women and trans women. Therefore, he's still entitled to identify as straight.

And activity does not trump self identification. Example: Dan Savage. CTOFA identifies as straight. Hat trick of evidence, CTOFA is straight.

There's no way for you to win this one, Hunter. Bring on next week's letter.
People believe all sorts of things. Doesn't mean they're true. Witness the Fox-News-watching, Trump-voting crowd.

@BiDanFan: Kudos, to you, girl. But you know, some cases are lost causes. Most of us here on this forum want to learn and to broaden our thinking. Some people just want to stick their fingers in their ears and argue for the sake of arguing. Don't waste your time and energy. Just because someone doesn't use offensive language, doesn't mean he's not a troll.

@CMD: Don't try to reason with someone unreasonable who discounts your lived experience in favor of his own half-baked, poorly-thought-out, unproved theories.
Some people have so very, very little going on in their lives that they will deliberately try to stir up shit just to make people listen to them. Sad, really.
@160 nocutename: "People believe all sorts of things. Doesn't mean they're true.
Witness the Fox-News-watching, Trump-voting crowd."

I nominate you the winner of the DDD thread!
@159: I say it's a tie: BiDanFan and nocutename won that one.
@157/158, I like Dan's approach:
>> I've described sexual identity as a cake with three layers, NOHUMP. The first layer is who you wanna do (desire), the second layer is who you're actually doing (behavior), and the third layer is what you tell people you're doing/who you are (identity). The more neatly aligned your layers, the less messy your cake. >>…

Though I wish his third layer were called "label" or "stated identity" rather than "identity," since he used "identity" further up. For that matter, I wish he had spelled "Hierarchy" correctly in this headline to another column about the same topic:…
@152, really wtf is completely woman?
Or completely male? Variety exists in the cis community as well as it exists in the trans community. The problem as I often see it thru reading, because as I've said, my experience with trans people is very limited, is the banging of heads between cis and trans women.
Idiot attitudes like those shown by hunter is what the bogans believe, and mostly they are a lost cause. About time all this measure bull is thrown out.
It's taken me a long time to process and start to understand the trans story as an outsider, and I fully accept trans (xy) women as women. They are not cis ( xx) women though and that distinction is never going away, and why should it. As long as all women listen to each other and work together, that difference can be a strength.
@163: Lava, you just plain rock.
Hunter's comment @159 reminds me of this scene.…
Aw thanks Grizelda. You rock too.
Lots of press around the trans issue this last week. What I fear is happening is ciswomen erasure, and that is not on. We do have experiences that are biologically determined and that is never going to be erased in word or deed.
@165 BiDanFan: LOL--Monty Python--I love it!
Reminds me of a particularly sarcastic remark made by British Columbian actor, Michael Ontkean, in the 1977 film, Slap Shot, about fighting in hockey: 'Bleed all over 'em. Let 'em know you're there!'
@166 LavaGirl: Heaven forbid cis erasure. You're right---either cis gender cannot be erased.
We really need to get away from talking about cis women as XX and trans women as XY. Cis women just agree with the gender they were assigned at birth. The concept of biological sex is just as much a social construct as gender is, tbh. Unless you've been karyotyped you have no idea if you're XX, XY, XXX XXY, etc. That's not a test they typically do, because it's not cheap. So we don't know how common any of these actually are.

There are a lot of different things that come together to make up bio sex, and almost no one has ALL the characteristics of the gender they were assigned.
@168 KateRose: All I meant was that cis, trans male / trans female---erasure of ANY kind--shouldn't be acceptable. I identify as cis female.
@170: Further clarification: Whatever gender one identifies with, I accept as that individual's identity.
Don't worry, Auntie G, wasn't directed specifically at you. :) Just clarifying because there's a lot of misconceptions about sex vs gender.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.