I don't see eye to eye with Suzan on politics, but I think her posts on transsexualism are brilliant. I wish they would not get lost amidst all the other things she posts! Thank you for calling this one out and leading me there.

Suzan makes some good points, but unfortunatel she reveals her predjudice and hatred with these line:

Isn’t the invention of all these euphemisms a ceding of agency
to the forces of neo-puritanism represented by conservative politics
in partnership with fundamentalist religions?

The right wing fundamentalists who hate us do not hate us because the word sex is the root word of transsexual.
Do you really think they like transgender any better?"

That's kind of sad. I haven't found what she rants about to be true.

Pamela said Suzan shows "her prejudice and hatred". Why, because she disagrees with you? It seems to me that many of us use such terms in a rather informal sense. I personally think that Suzy's take is oversimplified, but I cannot assign her views to such darker motives.

Besides, her article is about a lot more than such things.

We can only ever speak from our own very personal perspectives. Some of the problems that continually raise themselves is the apparent "authoritive attitude" that so many supporters of the transgender paradigm adopt in what they write. My suspicion is that it comes from male arrogance. It is more likely however that it's sourced in an assumption that transsexuals were ever male (or female). Either through malice or just plain ignorance (as in don't know or are unaware) they fail to understand that transsexuality is something that does not come over anyone as a "realisation". Transsexuality is simply there with you from the second you become self-aware. It is about which sex you are it is not simply about how you present yourself to society.

Even the truth from a political extremist isn't always palatable because no matter how hard Suzan may try everything she writes is so loaded with her political ideology it's hard to read.
Not just from the point of having to wade through political dogma but from the point of trying to determine where the dogma starts and the real subject matter begins.

Some people are just like that and I am not saying this out of spite but it's how I feel, and I know I'm not alone.

Credit where credit is do this is one of her better peaces of commentary.

Did you actually read what you said -- "Even the truth from a political extremist isn't always palatable"?

Does that mean lies from those who agree with you are "better"?

That actually explains a lot.

Of course, folks who have opposing political views NEVER allow their politics to impinge on their commentary -- right?

The fact they disagree with someones politics means they NEVER see EVERYTHING that person writes through a "political lens" -- right?

In addition, they NEVER indulge in ad hom attacks simply because they see someones political views antithetical to their cherished, and OBVIOUSLY correct, world view -- right?

If you actually are correct, do you really think it necessary to dislike EVERYTHING someone writes -- even if it actually AGREES with your stated positions?

Some of the comments are just AMAZING.

Obviously, I do not agree with many of the comments made by some folks on a whole lot of issues -- perhaps that's why I usually read neither their blogs nor their comments.. Very surprisingly, I seem to be none the worse for it.

An opinion column and/or comments are only as good as the core argument and its presentation. I have never cared much for criticisms that hinge on what, after all, are minor disagreements over lateral ideological positions.

The heart of Suzan's blog post at Women Born Transsexual deals with an all-too-common complaint that transsexual and sex-change are unacceptable words because they have sex in them and might lead people to get the wrong idea. As Suzan pointed out, it is an acceptably descriptive term for what really happens.

So, how can that yield a "wrong" idea? In fact, using such terms is a direct description that short-circuits a pathetic flight from biology.

The fact that Suzan takes time out for a left-wing commercial does not in any way negate her central argument. The same would be true if the commercial had been from the Right.

One can argue against either as a matter of style, but little else.

Sorry tinagrrl, anything from such a poli8tical extremist be it truth or lies is not palatable. I would be truly shocked if for once Suzan would write something that was absent of her politics.

Sharon sometimes the left wing commercials are half the program.
If I wanted my programming half commercial content I would resort to watching television or listen to NPR.

Thank God there are alternatives. :)

You haven't even addressed the substance of Suzan's article or Tina's comment. You don't like their politics -- I get that, but repetitive harping about your disagreements will go nowhere.

Let's keep it on topic or I will unwrap the comment hammer.

TS-Si welcomes responsible comments.

We encourage lively, open debate, but ask that you show respect for others. We often publish material that presents challenges and insights worthy of extended discussion. This can be done with emotional maturity and intelligence.

Before commenting on an article, please read it thoroughly and stay on topic. Address the issues without presumptions about the author(s) or other persons.

We reserve the right to remove any comment that is a personal attack or off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, obscene, phobic, profane, racists, or otherwise inappropriate. Removal for cause may occur without prior notice.

The previously mentioned abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.

All comments are subject to our terms of use and overall site policies. Repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges.

By submitting your comments we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete your comments at any time without further notice.

All comments input into the TS-Si.org comment facility are copyrighted by TS-Si, Inc. Some comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site.

These Terms of Use are subject to modification at any time without notice and at our discretion.

I'm done

If I could actually read the article in question instead of getting 4 paragraphs into it before my head wants to explode from the political extremist crap I would be glad to.

By the way I did address Tina's lack of multi dimensional thinking, which is what she attacked me with.

Have a nice day real life awaits.

"Tina's lack of multi dimensional thinking" -- I guess that is ANOTHER way of saying "WE DISAGREE!!", while also taking a swipe at me.

Have at it.

Of course, your attacks only serve to harden my position. I see (once again) there is no possibility of any sort of dialogue - something I learned long ago.

I have an idea -- look at the entire history of The USA. Gain a balanced view. Actually learn what The Constitution says -- then come on back. My fear is you will "cherry pick" authors, "facts", and interpretations, and learn very little.

Have fun. You are right about one thing -- real life awaits.

i have no problem with the word 'sex' in transsexual, and use it specifically during the rare moments when i talk to somebody face-to-face about it, and the differences from transgender.

And it's been my limited (by lifespan) observation that Suzan is correct in pointing out a knee-jerk puritanical response by a Christian-dominant society, to the word sex and anything associated with it. i would even dare to say the evidence would be overwhelming in support of that claim.

Of course the porn industry's fetish use of the term has only antagonized the siuation, above and beyond the word sex itself. But not enough to dissuade me from using it.

But admittedly, Suzan considers me a gay man ('queen' in her own words). So i advise you to weigh anything i may say in support or disagreement with her. You might choose to disregard my opinion accordingly.

A friend of mine, whom many here know well, posted a comment the other day about injuring herself, and having to go home to the UK for treatment, as she was covered financially for the cost there. All of the comments were of the "I hope you get better soon" variety. Until one person decided that her very unpolitical post was perfect opportunity to launch a diatribe on the superiority of capitalism over socialism, and trash the current U.S. president's motives. It was dumb and unnecessary. I am reminded of that reading all this.

Gee, Anon.T-Girl, if I'm not mistaken, Suzan considers you a PRE-OP. As such you are NOT a "gay man" (unless you identify as such). There is now, and always has been, a difference. That's one thing that has been very clear in her writing.

As she has written many times before, when she first tried sex with guys (before coming out as transsexual) her partners spoke of their dissatisfaction, saying it was "like having sex with a girl".

So, even gay men do not see transsexuals as gay men.

Just a minor point - perhaps you have read what folks say Suzan has written, as opposed to reading stuff she has actually written.

Just a minor point, Tine. Perhaps you make assumptions about Suzan, as opposed to reading stuff she has actually written.

"Your ilk troll the internet with wannabees like JU and ATG (whose own blog shows her to be basically a queen." - Suzan Cooke, in response to Aria Blue, in a reply thread i did not participate in and had nothing to do with. TS-SI 05 April 2010.

Sharon deleted it and replaced it with a Terms of Usage warning, after i pointed it out much later. The irony of it all was, i never have any contact with gay subculture, and actually had to look up the term 'queen' at the time to figure out exactly what she ment. i was confused by it, because i had never even attended a drag show before.

i point it out because on her own blog she has declared herself to possess an 'infallible judgement' with people. Needless to say, i disagree with her self-assessment.

You may be confusing me with someone who is 'side' oriented in debates. i have no side. i am a free agent who supports truth where i see it, and call out bulls**t like-wise. It doesn't matter who it comes from. If someone speaks nothing but truth, i'll get along just fine with them.

But nobody gets a free pass on distorting the truth. And i have a long memory.

Ah, yes, do you remember telling me to shut up because I had the NERVE to respond to a comment you made?

Do you remember telling folks exactly what is, and was - this when you were rather new to the whole T-thing - and seemed to have very little experience?

Do you recall making a comment on my blog saying how much you liked it (granted, my blog has NOTHING to do with any sort of "T" anything) before you realized it was mine?

Do you recall attacking people on what appears to be the say-so of other folks, before you really knew what the people you are attacking actually stand for?

Is it possible you actually made a mistake? Is this why attacking folks who agree with you on almost everything has to continue? After all -- why EVER admit to making an error.

Exact source and quote, please. You can reproduce exactly what i said, and where, and in what context, can't you?.

Because failure to do so would mean your claims falls into that 'bulls**t' and 'distorting the truth' matter i was talking about.

Your refusal to acknowledge your error, with an attempt at deflection is also interesting.
i know you are always leaping to Suzan's defense on blogs beyond her own, which is fine. But when you are seemingly dispatched to deflect matters and 'save face' for her, rather than acknowledging something or making an apology. It does speak volumes about someone.

This is behavior i am not willing to dismiss, by attributing it to the severe generational gap between us. This is character and behavior oriented.

To all, honest differences are ok, but let's keep the following out of this: (1) settling old scores, (2) insults, (3) coarse language, and (4) general ill-will.

Comments on the substance of what Suzan had to say in the column under discussion are, of course, very welcome.

Ill will? Will can be ill, but illness is not spontaneous. It is passed on by others.

But i will instill a pill to induce my fill of chill. This electric quill can till a hill of ill will, or kill it until the memory is nil.

And i will refrain from commenting on writers here through the lens of my experiences accordingly.