"Sex change soldier" - Sky Living, in 25 minutes

deirdre_dub

OK - it's probably too late for most of you, but I've just noticed that "Sex change soldier" will be on Sky Living within the next half-hour.

Not looking forward to it - the official blurb on NTL mentions her by her male name only. :mad:

Links234

Is this the one about Jan Hamilton?

I think you can get it on youtube for those without Sky Living

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhCwYHQrmE

L.Jenkins

Just watched it. Felt they gave alittle too much time to the media portrayal and her surgeries. It could have dealt just alittle more with her life in a respectful way.

deirdre_dub

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

Just watched it. Felt they gave alittle too much time to the media portrayal and her surgeries. It could have dealt just alittle more with her life in a respectful way.

I've just started reading "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano, where she explains what the portrayal of surgeries is all about. It is about portraying Jan's gender as "artifically constructed", rather than a real thing that exists within her.

The programme actually followed Serano's formula quite well. It started with "Ian" (gender erasure) transforming (i.e. it's not real) into Jan (i.e. the creation of "Ian"). At one stage, did you notice the camera zooming in on Jan's crotch? Disgusting.

I swear to God, if I ever find myself in the media as a trans person, and someone asks me about surgery, I'm gonna tell them that it's none of their damn business, ask them if they ask all their guests to talk about their genitals on national media, and tell them that my gender isn't something that is created on an operating table - it is something that was created in my mother's womb.

:mad:

Shakti

It must be a couple of years since I watched it....
Didn't she get a really rough letter from her parents, along the lines of "our son is dead and we want nothing to do with you" that was heartbreaking.

xsiborg

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

Just watched it. Felt they gave alittle too much time to the media portrayal and her surgeries. It could have dealt just alittle more with her life in a respectful way.

i watched this with a mixture of admiration for Jan, but also well, disappointed, by his selfishness to regard the feelings of those around him/her.

i understand that he would have used the money from the media interviews though to fund his surgeries.

i thought it a particularly poignant moment the utter look of fear on his face as he went in for his pre-op surgery and told the camera crew to tell his parents he loved them.

as you mentioned ITMA, it could have dealt more sensitively and respecfully with her personal life, a one hour documentary just didnt seem enough really.

L.Jenkins

xsiborg wrote: »

i watched this with a mixture of admiration for Jan, but also well, disappointed, by his her selfishness to regard the feelings of those around him/her.

i understand that he would have used the money from the media interviews though to fund his surgeries. i thought it a particularly poignant moment the utter look of fear on his face as he she went in for his her pre-op surgery and told the camera crew to tell his her parents he she loved them.

as you mentioned ITMA, it could have dealt more sensitively and respecfully with her personal life, a one hour documentary just didnt seem enough really.

Sorry for the corrections, Jan is female. Secondly, with respect to hurt feelings in the case of family and those around, yes these things happen and she could have done it better. That's beside the point.

As you said Deirdre, this is the kind of media attention we MTFs get. It's a hurrendous way to treat any person. The documentry concerns itself way too much with her surgeries also.

L.Jenkins

On a side note, her time and experience in the British Military scares me alittle and doesn't leave me hopeful for my reserve career at the moment. I'm only hope the military can learn from the Canadians and Jans experience.

deirdre_dub

xsiborg wrote: »

his selfishness to regard the feelings of those around him/her.

She. Her. Not "him". And certainly not "him/her".

Since when is it selfish to do what you need to do to save your life?

And, did you not feel the selfishness of those around her towards the fact that she has a medical condition that she went through a horrendously difficult time to fix? I mean, what kind of person isn't there for their friend / daughter / comrade when they are in hospital about to have life-saving surgery?

his surgeries ... his face

Her surgeries, her face.

azezil

deirdre_dub wrote: »

She. Her. Not "him". And certainly not "him/her".

Since when is it selfish to do what you need to do to save your life?

And, did you not feel the selfishness of those around her towards the fact that she has a medical condition that she went through a horrendously difficult time to fix? I mean, what kind of person isn't there for their friend / daughter / comrade when they are in hospital about to have life-saving surgery?
Her surgeries, her face.

..ehh how exactly is cosmetic surgery "life saving"?

L.Jenkins

FFS and SRS is ellective, but for some it is life saving in how they see and feel about themselves.

Shakti

azezil wrote: »

..ehh how exactly is cosmetic surgery "life saving"?

your definition of 'cosmetic surgery' is?

deirdre_dub

azezil wrote: »

..ehh how exactly is cosmetic surgery "life saving"?

Speaking for myself, the charade that was the male me had only a few years left to live at the time I started transition.

Going back to the book "whipping girl". Imagine how difficult it is to be in a job that you can't stand. It affects all aspects of your life - your mood, your relationships, you energy etc etc. Most people will leave such a job after a few weeks / months (or in this economy maybe even longer).

Now imagine how difficult it is to be in a body that you can't stand - a body that every fibre of your being is telling you is wrong. Thing is - you are in it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and cannot escape, until you make the enormous step of transition.

That is how "cosmetic surgery" is life-saving.

deirdre_dub

xsiborg wrote: »

disappointed by his selfishness to regard the feelings of those around him/her.

Are you also disappointed by the selfishness of a gay man in a marriage who cannot take it any more and goes and seeks love for the first time in his life?

azezil

Shakti wrote: »

your definition of 'cosmetic surgery' is?

Changing your outward appearance to make yourself feel more comfortable with the person you see in the mirror.

However, the surgies (4) I had were life saving as I'd be dead if I didn't have them. Therefore I see a very real difference between "life saving" and "cosmetic" surgery.

deirdre_dub

azezil wrote: »

Changing your outward appearance to make yourself feel more comfortable with the person you see in the mirror.

The surgeries transgender people have aren't to make us more comfortable with what we see in the mirror - they are to make us able to live with what we see in the mirror. Hence they are life-saving.

deirdre_dub

I've noticed that, over the past few months, pretty much every transgender thread has ended up being locked. Shall we take bets on how long this thread lasts before the trolls and others derail it? I bet 62 posts. :rolleyes:

Links234

"Life saving" might seem at first like a bit of an exaggeration, but when you consider the extremely high rates of suicide that transgender people have pre-transition, it can be quite an accurate statement for many. But I'd say that it's the entire process of transition that is life saving, not a particular surgery on it's own. I think that it's more fair to say that these are corrective surgeries that can greatly improve the quality of life for those that need them, but it is still very unfair to consider these merely cosmetic.

Also, I think we can discuss this issue in a reasonable manner without it getting heated.

jaffacakesyum

I don't wish it on anyone to be born in the wrong body and it must be a horrible thing to go through. I just think that these 'corrective' surgeries as Links put it, are just that. It no doubt makes the life of the person much more easier, and they will be happier of course. However, I think it's a little unfair to call it 'lifesaving surgery'...I know people who have gone through truly lifesaving surgery - people who literally would have died if they didn't have it and they had no control over life or death. It's not fair on these people to equate their experience to corrective cosmetic surgery.

I of course accept that many transgendered individuals would contemplate suicide if they didn't get the surgery (which is an awfully sad thing but I'm sure it happens), but in my opinion it is just different.

azezil

"Corrective", yeah I agree with that term alright.

deirdre_dub

Umm - for some, it's corrective, for others (myself and, I believe, Jan), it's lifesaving. OK?! :rolleyes:

One thing I noticed about Jan's story is that she started transition at about the same age as me. When you've lived a charade for that long, living it for a day longer becomes ever more difficult.

Shakti

azezil wrote: »

Changing your outward appearance to make yourself feel more comfortable with the person you see in the mirror.

However, the surgies (4) I had were life saving as I'd be dead if I didn't have them. Therefore I see a very real difference between "life saving" and "cosmetic" surgery.

I hope your feeling better,

There is quite a lot of faulty assumptions made surrounding the healthcare of trans-folk.
There is a cosmetic element to most surgeries even life threatening ones but the 'cosmetics' are not the primary motivation for the surgery even if to the critical outsider in some cases it might appear that way.

xsiborg

deirdre_dub wrote: »

She. Her. Not "him". And certainly not "him/her".

Since when is it selfish to do what you need to do to save your life?

And, did you not feel the selfishness of those around her towards the fact that she has a medical condition that she went through a horrendously difficult time to fix? I mean, what kind of person isn't there for their friend / daughter / comrade when they are in hospital about to have life-saving surgery?
Her surgeries, her face.

Deirdre with all due respect, i resisted from being drawn into a debate with you when i read your post detailing your reaction to the program, simply because having previously tried to debate a topic with you before, your flair for the dramatic and exaggerated became so obvious to the point where i chose to withdraw from the debate.

i saw red this morning after reading your post, but an internet forum is just that, you will have your opinion. but i find it hard to respect your inflated opinion. perhaps its just a personality clash, but your posts do come across as disrespectful, sensationalist, and condescending to those trying to gain a better understanding of what goes through the mind of a transgendered/transexual/<insert your own corrective terminology here>.

for a start-

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It is about portraying Jan's gender as "artifically constructed", rather than a real thing that exists within her.

Jan herself admitted that she would always be "only a very good facsimile of a woman", the word facsilime suggesting that Jan still feels herself that she is artificially constructed, not mentally, but certainly physically.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

At one stage, did you notice the camera zooming in on Jan's crotch? Disgusting.

what? seriously? out of an hour long programme and that's the main thing you picked up on? incidentally- no, i must have missed this, but i did notice how she proudly cupped her breasts for the two lads in the cafe, perhaps YOU missed that. given the subject nature and the format of the programme, were you really that surprised that the camera panned down to her crotch, when a good 15 minutes of the programme was about the fact that she was going to have her penis physically altered to create a vagina?

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I swear to God, if I ever find myself in the media as a trans person, and someone asks me about surgery, I'm gonna tell them that it's none of their damn business.

if you ever find yourself in the media as a representative of the trans community, i can guarantee you that drawing attention to the fact that you are a trans person, WILL draw questions about your surgery! otherwise you just created a big white elephant in the room and it'll be a very short interview, either that, or the media will have no interest in talking to you. imagine how that interview would go-

Deirdre: "i represent the trans community..."
Interviewer: "so may i ask you about your surgery?"
Deirdre: "no you cant, what's between my legs isn't relevant, mind your own business, ask someone else in your audience whats between their legs!"
Interviewer: "ok then, lets get rid of you and talk to someone else who isn't so taken up with what's between our legs, we had hoped to give you a forum to educate others who seek to understand your condition and what life is like for you living with this condition and what is involved in it's treatment and what life is like for you now."
Deirdre: "you still want to know what's between my legs though, don't you?"
Interviewer: *facepalm*, "no Deirdre, we don't...".

deirdre_dub wrote: »

tell them that my gender isn't something that is created on an operating table - it is something that was created in my mother's womb.

certainly your gender wasn't created on an operating table, but again, with the greatest of respect- most people would have looked at you rather skeptically if physically as a man you identified yourself as female. it is only because you chose to alter your physical appearance that to OTHER PEOPLE, you are identifiable as a female.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And, did you not feel the selfishness of those around her towards the fact that she has a medical condition that she went through a horrendously difficult time to fix? I mean, what kind of person isn't there for their friend / daughter / comrade when they are in hospital about to have life-saving surgery?

i don't believe it was selfishness those around her felt, i think it was a sense of betrayal and confusion and frustration. Jan left her first wife remember, just walked out. her parents for 46 years had identified her as their son, Jan herself had years to come to terms with her decision, her parents, ex-wife, girlfriend, comrades in the armed forces, were suddenly supposed to turn around and say "oh that's ok, we understand and support your decision", i think not! they are just as human as Jan, they suffer emotional distress like she does, they develop their own coping mechanisms to deal with her decision. they were unable to handle the fact that the person they thought they had known, was now no longer the person they had known, but they were supposed to still treat her as the same person? if Deirdre one of my friends told me something that changed my perception of them, then i too would have to find a coping mechanism. it's what makes me human, none of us are infallible.

i also feel it's important to draw a distinction between "life saving", and "life threatening" surgery. if someone chooses to take their own life, and if a surgical procedure will prevent that, then it is life threatening surgery.

life saving surgery is when your father who you never saw eye to eye with, is about to go into an operating theater to have a quadruple bypass heart procedure done to save his life, he has no choice in the matter if he wants to live, and i was there for him. so i can understand why none of Jan's relatives/ friends/ comrades were not there by her bedside for a surgical procedure that not alone did they not understand, but they did not approve of either. the risk of her dying on the operating table was quite minimal.

xsiborg

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Are you also disappointed by the selfishness of a gay man in a marriage who cannot take it any more and goes and seeks love for the first time in his life?

the only reason this thread might get locked, and the reason so many of these kinds of threads get locked, is because of off-topic, irrelevant posts like this.

did you watch the documentary at all? Jan herself was at pains almost, to stress that she was NOT gay!

Links234

xsiborg wrote: »

they were unable to handle the fact that the person they thought they had known, was now no longer the person they had known, but they were supposed to still treat her as the same person? if Deirdre one of my friends told me something that changed my perception of them, then i too would have to find a coping mechanism. it's what makes me human, none of us are infallible.

sorry, but I have to take issue with this point...

there are many parents that have a life envisioned for their children, who have plans of marriage and kids for them, and for example if those children come out as gay they cut all contact with them, throw them out of their own homes. for them, they can't handle the fact that their child has a different sexuality than one they had envisioned, but when did "never speak to us again" become an acceptable coping mechanism? we wouldn't accept it for a parent that would disown their gay child, or a friend who would cut off a gay friend, why on earth would we excuse it for the parents and friends of someone who is trans? why is the abandonment and ostracization of a human being over who they are acceptable when they are trans? let alone saying that the trans person is the selfish one!

and I think that's the guts of this argument... put aside if it's life-saving or not, pursuing transition is not a selfish act, and it's the implication that it is that was the point of contention here.

deirdre_dub

xsiborg wrote: »

It is about portraying Jan's gender as "artifically constructed", rather than a real thing that exists within her.

Jan herself admitted that she would always be "only a very good facsimile of a woman", the word facsilime suggesting that Jan still feels herself that she is artificially constructed, not mentally, but certainly physically.

And are there not other possible explanations for the word "facsimile"? Like, for example, the all-too-common experience of women around the world feeling like they will never ever live up to the ideal?

At one stage, did you notice the camera zooming in on Jan's crotch? Disgusting.

what? seriously? out of an hour long programme and that's the main thing you picked up on?

Nope. I also picked up on the focus on surgeries, on the use of her male name, and on other things that I haven't mentioned here.

but i did notice how she proudly cupped her breasts for the two lads in the cafe, perhaps YOU missed that.

Not at all! But just because a woman is happy to cup her breasts for two male friends in a playful way doesn't mean that it is OK for a camera which is acting for the eyes of millions of people to focus on her crotch.

given the subject nature and the format of the programme, were you really that surprised that the camera panned down to her crotch, when a good 15 minutes of the programme was about the fact that she was going to have her penis physically altered to create a vagina?

I'm not at all surprised that a programme with such a focus would have a camera shot of a crotch. What I (and other trans people) are terribly disappointed about (and even distrubed by) is that so much focus was on her genitals in the first place. Being transgender isn't about your genitals - much as society would like it to be so.

if you ever find yourself in the media as a representative of the trans community, i can guarantee you that drawing attention to the fact that you are a trans person, WILL draw questions about your surgery!

My point exactly. Society has this ridiculous obsession with what is between people's legs. What is between your legs determines so much about what you may and may not do with your life, and it is very very wrong.

Deirdre: "i represent the trans community..."
Interviewer: "so may i ask you about your surgery?"
Deirdre: "no you cant, what's between my legs isn't relevant, mind your own business, ask someone else in your audience whats between their legs!"
Interviewer: "ok then, lets get rid of you and talk to someone else who isn't so taken up with what's between our legs, we had hoped to give you a forum to educate others who seek to understand your condition and what life is like for you living with this condition and what is involved in it's treatment and what life is like for you now."

Umm - how is it that I am "obsessed" with what is between my legs when they are the ones to raise the question?

You seem to think that the media are entitled to know intimate details about what is between my legs. Do you believe the media is entitled to know intimate details about what is between yours? Do you believe that any man the media asks how long he is should be required to answer? Or any woman the media asks how deep she is should be required to answer? Or is it only transgender people who should be subject to such invasive questioning?

certainly your gender wasn't created on an operating table, but again, with the greatest of respect- most people would have looked at you rather skeptically if physically as a man you identified yourself as female. it is only because you chose to alter your physical appearance that to OTHER PEOPLE, you are identifiable as a female.

In other words, my inner experience of my gender counts for nothing. Umm - it is that inner experience that created the need for the operating table in the first place. It is that inner experience that is at the very core of the entire debate. To focus on what's between the legs, ignorning the inner experience, is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the living room that you wrote about.

i don't believe it was selfishness those around her felt, i think it was a sense of betrayal and confusion and frustration. Jan left her first wife remember, just walked out. her parents for 46 years had identified her as their son, Jan herself had years to come to terms with her decision, her parents, ex-wife, girlfriend, comrades in the armed forces, were suddenly supposed to turn around and say "oh that's ok, we understand and support your decision", i think not! they are just as human as Jan, they suffer emotional distress like she does, they develop their own coping mechanisms to deal with her decision.

Jan did not "decide" to change her gender. Jan discovered her gender. Yes, of course, in this cissexist society, it can be very difficult on those around a transgender person. But, to me, there is a type of selfishness in acting in such a way that says that that cissexism is more important than a person who is suffering.

they were unable to handle the fact that the person they thought they had known, was now no longer the person they had known, but they were supposed to still treat her as the same person?

Umm - she is still the same person! Indeed, she is more of the person she actually is than has ever been seen by those around her.

if Deirdre one of my friends told me something that changed my perception of them, then i too would have to find a coping mechanism.

Would you also need a "coping mechanism" if one of your friends changed your perception of them for the better? No - the reason why you would need a coping mechanism is because there is something "bad" (I use that word loosely) about transgenderism - there is something "bad" about this medical condition.

i can understand why none of Jan's relatives/ friends/ comrades were not there by her bedside for a surgical procedure that not alone did they not understand, but they did not approve of either.

And this is the point. The medical condition of transgenderism has, somehow, become a moral issue. It has somehow managed to be immoral for those with this medical condition to treat it! Imagine if it were immoral to treat a broken leg!

xsiborg wrote: »

did you watch the documentary at all? Jan herself was at pains almost, to stress that she was NOT gay!

Umm - you missed my point. You said that it was selfish of her to express her gender. I was wondering if it is also selfish of someone in a similar situation to express their sexuality.

xsiborg

Links234 wrote: »

sorry, but I have to take issue with this point...

there are many parents that have a life envisioned for their children, who have plans of marriage and kids for them, and for example if those children come out as gay they cut all contact with them, throw them out of their own homes. for them, they can't handle the fact that their child has a different sexuality than one they had envisioned, but when did "never speak to us again" become an acceptable coping mechanism? we wouldn't accept it for a parent that would disown their gay child, or a friend who would cut off a gay friend, why on earth would we excuse it for the parents and friends of someone who is trans? why is the abandonment and ostracization of a human being over who they are acceptable when they are trans? let alone saying that the trans person is the selfish one!

But Links nobody said it was acceptable, and not just based on someones sexuality, I wouldn't find it acceptable, you wouldn't find it acceptable, but that's not to say it doesn't happen.

i simply meant that i understood it to be their coping mechanism, and the reason i understand it is because my own parents disowned me because they disapproved of my choice of girlfriend at the time. yes there were other issues, but for them this was the straw that broke the camel's back. i then in turn had to develop my own coping mechanism to adapt to this. i understood WHY they disapproved and accepted their decision. i may not have approved of it, but i had to learn to accept it. it just so happens that i did accept it.

Jan's parents found it incredibly difficult to cope with the fact that the person who they had known as their son for 46 years, was now their daughter, who they were supposed to try to get to know again. they just felt they couldn't do it. i don't think their motives were borne out of selfishness, i think they were borne out of misunderstanding, trying to adapt to a concept that was completely foreign to them. of course too there was an element of "what will the neighbours say?", but that too is understandable given the generation they themselves were brought up in.

Fozzydog3

ooh another semantics thread how lovely,

IMO it was an unbiased fly on the wall documentary about someone getting a sex change operation .

deirdre_dub

xsiborg wrote: »

i simply meant that i understood it to be their coping mechanism, and the reason i understand it is because my own parents disowned me because they disapproved of my choice of girlfriend at the time. yes there were other issues, but for them this was the straw that broke the camel's back. i then in turn had to develop my own coping mechanism to adapt to this. i understood WHY they disapproved and accepted their decision. i may not have approved of it, but i had to learn to accept it. it just so happens that i did accept it.

I'm sorry to hear of your experience.

The reason why I'm calling it "selfish" is because you called Jan "selfish". Jan's decisions were no more selfish than yours. If anyone is being selfish, it is those around Jan, and not Jan herself. I didn't see anything in the documentary which showed me someone who didn't give a sh1t about those around her. Of course, since we saw very little of the people around Jan, I acknowledge that "selfish" cannot be definitely ascribed to them either.

Yes, there are also other elements in what happened - lack of education being the primary one.

deirdre_dub

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

IMO it was an unbiased fly on the wall documentary about someone getting a sex change operation .

I think the point is that a programme about a transgender person which focusses on such a narrow part of the experience of transgenderism displays a certain amount of bias through the very fact of having that narrow focus.

Fozzydog3

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I think the point is that a programme about a transgender person which focusses on such a narrow part of the experience of transgenderism displays a certain amount of bias through the very fact of having that narrow focus.

Well they covered the surgery because she was getting it at that certain time and I admit maybe they did use it for some wow factor to get the punters watching , but on further research she was an editor in chief of a tv network I'm sure she had some say in the making

no offence but i think youre splitting hairs with this one

Links234

xsiborg wrote: »

But Links nobody said it was acceptable, and not just based on someones sexuality, I wouldn't find it acceptable, you wouldn't find it acceptable, but that's not to say it doesn't happen.

i simply meant that i understood it to be their coping mechanism, and the reason i understand it is because my own parents disowned me because they disapproved of my choice of girlfriend at the time. yes there were other issues, but for them this was the straw that broke the camel's back. i then in turn had to develop my own coping mechanism to adapt to this. i understood WHY they disapproved and accepted their decision. i may not have approved of it, but i had to learn to accept it. it just so happens that i did accept it.

Jan's parents found it incredibly difficult to cope with the fact that the person who they had known as their son for 46 years, was now their daughter, who they were supposed to try to get to know again. they just felt they couldn't do it. i don't think their motives were borne out of selfishness, i think they were borne out of misunderstanding, trying to adapt to a concept that was completely foreign to them. of course too there was an element of "what will the neighbours say?", but that too is understandable given the generation they themselves were brought up in.

I see what you mean, but does not understanding why her parents would disown her translate into selfishness on Jan's part?

deirdre_dub

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

but on further research she was an editor in chief of a tv network I'm sure she had some say in the making

Eh? She was an army paratrooper. Are you sure that you are talking about the same person in the same time period?

deirdre_dub

The programme featured a web site containing the response of some of her comrades. The good news, for what it is worth, is that there is a thread on the web site forum called A Note of Support for Jan Hamilton / Capt Ian Hamilton

WARNING - stomach-churning transphobia ahead

However, the web site also has a wiki-style entry on her.

Links234

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

no offence but i think youre splitting hairs with this one

Well, when you've seen a couple of trans documentaries, they very much follow the same kinda schtick

http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2009/07/20/trans-documentary-drinking-game/

xsiborg

Links234 wrote: »

I see what you mean, but does not understanding why her parents would disown her translate into selfishness on Jan's part?

no Links, and Deirdre (before your ninja delete edit! )

the way i meant she was selfish was in the way that she walked out on her ex-wife first of all, i'd call anyone that did that (for no apparent reason at the time) selfish. also the fact that she just "expected" her friends/ relatives/ comrades, to accept her decision, that like i said, she herself had years to come to terms with, whereas these people were expected to suddenly welcome her with open arms as such. people are people, and they can be prejudiced for any number of reasons, it doesn't make it right, and it isn't ideal, but then it's not an ideal world we live in.

perhaps "self-centered" would have been a better term to use.

and Deirdre i will return to your post, as i'd like to pick up on some of the points you made, as soon as i've finished swallowing the oxford dictionary because you introduce a new term there- "cissexism", that i haven't heard of before.

i do completely agree with you on one thing however, that the key is educating people, and that is what i am trying to do here, is to educate myself so that i have a better understanding of transgenderism.

i think though it would be helpful if we got past the whole "what's between your legs" bit, it's become tiresome now, i am more interested in what's between your ears, as in how your mind works, than i am in your physical attributes.

xsiborg

Links234 wrote: »

Well, when you've seen a couple of trans documentaries, they very much follow the same kinda schtick

http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2009/07/20/trans-documentary-drinking-game/

and this is why i like an enjoyable not too lofty discussion with Links, she can throw in a bit of humor and doesn't come across as having the same chip on her shoulder / "we're all out to get you" way of thinking that some other posters seem to have...

rainbow kirby

Xsiborg - attack the post, not the poster.

Links234

xsiborg wrote: »

and this is why i like an enjoyable not too lofty discussion with Links, she can throw in a bit of humor and doesn't come across as having the same chip on her shoulder / "we're all out to get you" way of thinking that some other posters seem to have...

Thanks. I'd appreciate the compliment a lot more if it wasn't so much of a backhanded insult to a friend of mine though.

L.Jenkins

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The programme featured a web site containing the response of some of her comrades. The good news, for what it is worth, is that there is a thread on the web site forum called A Note of Support for Jan Hamilton / Capt Ian Hamilton

WARNING - stomach-churning transphobia ahead

However, the web site also has a wiki-style entry on her.

That forum thread is a fúcking disgrace! I'll say no more.

deirdre_dub

xsiborg wrote: »

no Links, and Deirdre (before your ninja delete edit! )

Brain fail. :rolleyes: I misread Link's post.

the way i meant she was selfish was in the way that she walked out on her ex-wife first of all, i'd call anyone that did that (for no apparent reason at the time) selfish. also the fact that she just "expected" her friends/ relatives/ comrades, to accept her decision, that like i said, she herself had years to come to terms with, whereas these people were expected to suddenly welcome her with open arms as such. people are people, and they can be prejudiced for any number of reasons, it doesn't make it right, and it isn't ideal, but then it's not an ideal world we live in.

Not sure if she expected it - I think she was just upset when it didn't happen.

and Deirdre i will return to your post, as i'd like to pick up on some of the points you made, as soon as i've finished swallowing the oxford dictionary because you introduce a new term there- "cissexism", that i haven't heard of before.

Cissexism is basically that a cissexual (i.e. opposite of a transsexual - i.e. almost everyone) is more valid/correct/worthy than a transsexual (i.e. me).

i do completely agree with you on one thing however, that the key is educating people, and that is what i am trying to do here, is to educate myself so that i have a better understanding of transgenderism.

i think though it would be helpful if we got past the whole "what's between your legs" bit, it's become tiresome now, i am more interested in what's between your ears, as in how your mind works, than i am in your physical attributes.

And that is the most important bit of learning you can take from this. Transgenderism isn't about what is between your legs. That is incidental. That is (in many cases) a symptom. The main event is elsewhere. Hence the inappropriateness of much of last night's documentary.

rainbow kirby

ARRSE is a bit like that in general though, unfortunately the wiki article doesn't surprise me at all.

L.Jenkins

rainbow kirby wrote: »

ARRSE is a bit like that in general though, unfortunately the wiki article doesn't surprise me at all.

That's the British Military, I wonder will the Irish don't carry on the same way.

xsiborg

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Xsiborg - attack the post, not the poster.

sorry about that, was more intended to be a comment on their style of posting than the poster themselves...

Links234

xsiborg wrote: »

sorry about that, was more intended to be a comment on their style of posting than the poster themselves...

Deirdre is a very passionate person, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's quite a good trait, but I think her experiences here on boards have been somewhat soured and she gets defensive, because others threads on trans topics have been derailed quite frequently before. So you might appreciate why she might come across as having a chip on her shoulder then.

xsiborg

Links234 wrote: »

Deirdre is a very passionate person, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it's quite a good trait, but I think her experiences here on boards have been somewhat soured and she gets defensive, because others threads on trans topics have been derailed quite frequently before. So you might appreciate why she might come across as having a chip on her shoulder then.

i appreciate the explanation Links, and Deirdre no offence was meant personally, i hope you didnt take me up that way. as i said, im just trying to understand the whole concept, not here to personally attack or demean you in any way...

as i said in an earlier post, perhaps a personality clash...

Links234

Thanks xsiborg, I think we can often tend to get our backs up sometimes, as I'm sure you can appreciate it's a topic that is extremely personal to us, and some innocent probing can come across the wrong way or be taken up the wrong way. But that doesn't mean that these discussions aren't worth having, or can't be had, and I'll always try to be open to people who have their questions about trans issues.

G.K.

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

That forum thread is a fúcking disgrace! I'll say no more.

Agreed. Though compared to other threads on us trans individuals it's much nicer. :mad:

Links234

Getting back to the documentary itself, something else that really bothered me about it was that there was some implicit misogyny in some of it. There was a moment where the question was asked, (paraphrasing) why would someone who felt themselves to be a woman become a soldier? That really got my back up, because of the implications that women couldn't be soldiers, or have traditionally masculine careers/interests. So much is made of the fact that Jan was in the military, as if that fact should be shocking, or taken to be a contradiction. But there are plenty of women in the military and it is not seen as a contradiction or invective of the legitimacy of their genders. So while it might seem like a rather positive documentary, I think it's quite negative in many, subtle ways.

I'd absolutely adore to see a Charlie Brooker style taking apart of this kind of documentary style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dl2SP8Hk28

xsiborg

i was hoping that the documentary would be available on 4oD for those who hadn't seen it, unfortunately not, but the comments section at least made for an interesting read:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/sex-change-soldier/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

deirdre_dub

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

That's the British Military, I wonder will the Irish don't carry on the same way.

Next time you are with your comrades, maybe you could talk about this documentary that you saw, and see what the reaction is?