ask a transman anything

[Brighteye]

Look answer this ,why do men have a line on their scrotum? Why do men have nipples? Why is it so difficult for people to believe that we all start out as females, why is it so terrible?

Because it's faulty reasoning? Why do women have a clitoris if its only function is to grow into a penis?
Why do we grow flippers if we're not all fish to start off with? Would you agree that every foetus is a fish at first?

Nipples have a use for men, they are considered sexual organs, as they produce sexual arousing when touched or excited in any way. From one of your sources. And ever heard of male lactation?

There are many unused things in our body. Not only in men.

Quite so.

...one product we decided to call female. The manufacture created the pro type ( default system to be female) ...
Now there are certain hot spots in our bodies, nipples are one of them, so of coarse men are going to feel sensation in their nipples, this doesn't mean that nipples function in men is for sex. ...
My once clitoris after hormonal therapy has become a micro penis, it looks exactly as a penis the foreskin the head. We are a byproduct of hormones, as much as you want to deny it. ...

In case you did not read the link I provided here is the information that lets you know all fetuses start out as females. You can check the references on the article. Just because you have not learned or read about it before does not mean it isn't true. Remember science and medicine is constantly advancing and changing:

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2789.htm

So the fact that nipples can be pleasurable in men does mean that that's their function? Fair enough. So what is the function of the clitoris?
In case you did not read the link you provided, it has information that lets you know that female is the default pathway. You can check the references on the article. Just because you have thought about it does not mean it isn't true.

How many times do I need to reiterate that I am not denying that we are grossly affected by hormones (and nor, it appears, is Mirc)? I am stating a simple fact: that default is not the same as being that way initially.

 

[markangeloc]

Because it's faulty reasoning? Why do women have a clitoris if its only function is to grow into a penis?
Why do we grow flippers if we're not all fish to start off with? Would you agree that every foetus is a fish at first?


Quite so.


So the fact that nipples can be pleasurable in men does mean that that's their function? Fair enough. So what is the function of the clitoris?
In case you did not read the link you provided, it has information that lets you know that female is the default pathway. You can check the references on the article. Just because you have thought about it does not mean it isn't true.

How many times do I need to reiterate that I am not denying that we are grossly affected by hormones (and nor, it appears, is Mirc)? I am stating a simple fact: that default is not the same as being that way initially.

The function of the clitoris is to facilitate an orgasm, there is where the orgasmic nerve ends. What I am saying is that female is the default pathway, default means it is programed to be female unless other wise signal to be a male. I am not arguing with you, I am simply providing facts. Default means it is set up to be or starts out as. It is programed to be. Just as a default of your computer is set for certain things unless you change it. Either way we are going round and round in circles. I had not return to this forum in quite a long time, the reason I came back was some one wrote looking for me to get some answers. I answered them, then everyone else chimed in with their two cents. I have studied gender identity quite intensly, I give lectors and seminars throughout the medical community. I am pretty confident in my knowledge and abilities. You can question them all you want, it is the nature of the human race.

Regards

Mark Angelo

 

[Mirc]

How many times do I need to reiterate that I am not denying that we are grossly affected by hormones (and nor, it appears, is Mirc)? I am stating a simple fact: that default is not the same as being that way initially.

Exactly.

 

[markangeloc]

Exactly.

incorrect read the research.

 

[Brighteye]

incorrect read the research.

We have! Stop relying on what others write. The research can only show facts, such as after 8 weeks a signal either occurs, in which case the foetus becomes a boy, or the signal does not occur, making the foetus a girl.

To call the default setting female is to say that without the signal that setting will occur.
It does not say that unless that signal has been experienced the foetus is female.

The difference being time. That signal comes at a certain time; until that time the sex is undetermined, because we don't know what the signal may be.

It's as though I said that unless I become trapped in traffic I shall eat dinner, and that therefore I am fed.
I'm not fed until I've had dinner, even though having dinner is my default setting.

I don't care if the scientists know their facts. They clearly haven't thought about them enough.

 

[lassia]

We have! Stop relying on what others write. The research can only show facts, such as after 8 weeks a signal either occurs, in which case the foetus becomes a boy, or the signal does not occur, making the foetus a girl.

To call the default setting female is to say that without the signal that setting will occur.
It does not say that unless that signal has been experienced the foetus is female.

The difference being time. That signal comes at a certain time; until that time the sex is undetermined, because we don't know what the signal may be.

It's as though I said that unless I become trapped in traffic I shall eat dinner, and that therefore I am fed.
I'm not fed until I've had dinner, even though having dinner is my default setting.

I don't care if the scientists know their facts. They clearly haven't thought about them enough.

I don't know why you keep arguing about a frivolous detail. How does the difference between "default" and "original" have anything to do with either promoting or criticising transgenderism? Anything more than an excuse to call someone else stupid?

 

[Mirc]

I don't know why you keep arguing about a frivolous detail. How does the difference between "default" and "original" have anything to do with either promoting or criticising transgenderism? Anything more than an excuse to call someone else stupid?

You're a double login probably. Joined when we started this discussion, 3 posts and only in this thread? Come on!

 

[Brighteye]

I don't know why you keep arguing about a frivolous detail. How does the difference between "default" and "original" have anything to do with either promoting or criticising transgenderism? Anything more than an excuse to call someone else stupid?

I haven't called anyone stupid in my posts. I simply continued to argue the point when Markangeloc decided that it was not true. He also seems to place some emphasis on it. I have yet to find out why; I think that it can be separated quite easily from the concept of hormones regulating our existence quite considerably.

I'm not going to concede a point just because I don't currently see its importance. I might find out some importance later.

 

[lassia]

You're a double login probably. Joined when we started this discussion, 3 posts and only in this thread? Come on!

Couldn't I happen to be a lurker who is a male-to-female crossdresser?

Well, to 'prove' that I'm not a sock puppet of Mark, I'll say that I didn't like him when he said this:

Thanks man, I hope that I do it justice. The incline in trans film, especially the porn industry has increased. I think due in part by the curiosity and being something different. I guess the typical stuff is getting boring, so trans is new. What you are seeing though, are not really transsexual people, but transvesitites, cross dressers, who take the hormones to try to capitilize in an industry that can make them money. A respectable transsexual person will not engage in such practices. I dont like to speak for everyone, and God knows why people do what they do. The need for money can make you climb mountains. I am no one to judge. But I guess it is better than hatemongering. But I also hate to see people learn about transsexuals through porn. There are better avenues of education.

There are those of us who are happy with their gender: masculine men and feminine women.

There are those of us who savor the other gender's attire, but have no intention to imitate their mannerism, such as a lady who wears thousers or a gent who wears high-heels - granted the latter is not quite as common as the former now, but you know 200 years ago it was the opposite. See here: http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/guys/

There are those of us who feel good in the other gender's role, but are content with their born sex. These people, if they don the other sex's clothing, are crossdressers. If they don't don the other sex's clothing, or at least not to the point that people might mistaken them for the other sex, are effeminate men and tomboys.

There are those of us who believe that they were outrightly born into the wrong body: the transsexual people.

Then there are those of us who are happy with their genetic sex but took hormone anyway, because they were forced at a young age (some of the Thai Kathoeys, or so I've heard, in a way similar to the castrati in Middle Ages), or because they chose to so that they can get into the film industry. And there are those of us who don't take hormone at all, just wear the clothing when they are on stage: the drag queens. These people are mostly cisgender and their transsexualism are "acquired"*.


Now, Mark clearly doesn't like transsexual performers and denounced them as "transvestites". That creates a problem since the definition of the word "transvestite" has never been agreed upon. Some use the word to refer to transsexual or drag performers; some refer to transsexual fetishist, who derive sexual pleasure from clothing; and some refer to, erm, those of us who just enjoy wearing a pretty dress. But, the word now has a strong negative connotation, so those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men invented another word, "crossdresser", to describe themselves. And then Mark denounced crossdressers as well. And those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men are again left without a name.

Well, that is not very convenient is it? So I would like to, as one of the TOUWJEWAPDBSWTWTSTARM, respectfully ask Mark to stop this persecution. I like to wear a skirt, or a pair of high-heels, though I don't want to dress provocatively and don't wear 10 inches heels with a 4 inches platform. Nor would I want to perform on a stage. I study theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, just like any other normal geek guy. Sometimes I feel feminine, yet more often I feel masculine and want to conquer the world (hey I play Civilization!). I would never have the urge to have a sex reassignment surgery, because I enjoy the boy side of me just as much. Nor would I be happy if someone forbids me from dressing as a girl, because that's equally a part of me. Am I respectable? I hope so. Am I a transsexual? No. Am I a crossdresser? Long as you don't mean I'm a pornstar. Am I a transgenderist? Well that's the newest term and hopefully not tainted yet...

Oh damn, women are a hell lot luckier. They can burgle a man's wardrobe without repercussion. They don't have to spend so many words defending themselves, well, unless they are, like Mark, actually a man! So much for gender egalitarianism


* To make it even more confusing, there is the intersection of transsexual and drag queens: those of us who genuinely enjoy playing the other gender's role and don't mind to make a living out of it. The point is that we are all in a continuous spectrum. A clear distinction is by definition impossible. Is magenta red? Is fuchsia red too? And lavender?

 

[lassia]

I haven't called anyone stupid in my posts. I simply continued to argue the point when Markangeloc decided that it was not true. He also seems to place some emphasis on it. I have yet to find out why; I think that it can be separated quite easily from the concept of hormones regulating our existence quite considerably.

I'm not going to concede a point just because I don't currently see its importance. I might find out some importance later.

You didn't. Mirc did and you supported him. That makes you look more trollish than you probably intend to be. And you did suggest that scientists "clearly haven't thought about them enough".

Anyway, can we agree that to debate on something that has yet to show its importance is a waste of time, since the set of this kind of problem is infinitely large?

 

[markangeloc]

We have! Stop relying on what others write. The research can only show facts, such as after 8 weeks a signal either occurs, in which case the foetus becomes a boy, or the signal does not occur, making the foetus a girl.

To call the default setting female is to say that without the signal that setting will occur.
It does not say that unless that signal has been experienced the foetus is female.

The difference being time. That signal comes at a certain time; until that time the sex is undetermined, because we don't know what the signal may be.

It's as though I said that unless I become trapped in traffic I shall eat dinner, and that therefore I am fed.
I'm not fed until I've had dinner, even though having dinner is my default setting.

I don't care if the scientists know their facts. They clearly haven't thought about them enough.

You are miss reading the research, it clearly state initially the fetus starts out as female. What do you mean that the scientist have not thought about them enough, are you kidding me? Your traffic analogy is away from the mark and point. Either way, it is not a signal but hormones that changes the pathway. Exposure to androgen will create a boy from the initial female Fetus. The facts are facts, I am not making this up, nor did I create the system, take it up with the man upstairs who clearly favored women for the protype of mankind.

On another note, who cares. Like I said, how this whole conversation got vierd from a poster wanting information because they are transgender and wanted some info, is beyond me. I have had enough of the back and forth. I know the facts, I have done the research and read many article that have provided me with the information. I suggest you do the same, or not, and continue to think what you want. Clearly you are going to no matter how much research I present, you will interpret it as you like.

Good day and good bye

 

[IglooDame]

Couldn't I happen to be a lurker who is a male-to-female crossdresser?

Well, to 'prove' that I'm not a sock puppet of Mark, I'll say that I didn't like him when he said this:



There are those of us who are happy with their gender: masculine men and feminine women.

There are those of us who savor the other gender's attire, but have no intention to imitate their mannerism, such as a lady who wears thousers or a gent who wears high-heels - granted the latter is not quite as common as the former now, but you know 200 years ago it was the opposite. See here: http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/guys/

There are those of us who feel good in the other gender's role, but are content with their born sex. These people, if they don the other sex's clothing, are crossdressers. If they don't don the other sex's clothing, or at least not to the point that people might mistaken them for the other sex, are effeminate men and tomboys.

There are those of us who believe that they were outrightly born into the wrong body: the transsexual people.

Then there are those of us who are happy with their genetic sex but took hormone anyway, because they were forced at a young age (some of the Thai Kathoeys, or so I've heard, in a way similar to the castrati in Middle Ages), or because they chose to so that they can get into the film industry. And there are those of us who don't take hormone at all, just wear the clothing when they are on stage: the drag queens. These people are mostly cisgender and their transsexualism are "acquired"*.


Now, Mark clearly doesn't like transsexual performers and denounced them as "transvestites". That creates a problem since the definition of the word "transvestite" has never been agreed upon. Some use the word to refer to transsexual or drag performers; some refer to transsexual fetishist, who derive sexual pleasure from clothing; and some refer to, erm, those of us who just enjoy wearing a pretty dress. But, the word now has a strong negative connotation, so those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men invented another word, "crossdresser", to describe themselves. And then Mark denounced crossdressers as well. And those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men are again left without a name.

Well, that is not very convenient is it? So I would like to, as one of the TOUWJEWAPDBSWTWTSTARM, respectfully ask Mark to stop this persecution. I like to wear a skirt, or a pair of high-heels, though I don't want to dress provocatively and don't wear 10 inches heels with a 4 inches platform. Nor would I want to perform on a stage. I study theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, just like any other normal geek guy. Sometimes I feel feminine, yet more often I feel masculine and want to conquer the world (hey I play Civilization!). I would never have the urge to have a sex reassignment surgery, because I enjoy the boy side of me just as much. Nor would I be happy if someone forbids me from dressing as a girl, because that's equally a part of me. Am I respectable? I hope so. Am I a transsexual? No. Am I a crossdresser? Long as you don't mean I'm a pornstar. Am I a transgenderist? Well that's the newest term and hopefully not tainted yet...

Oh damn, women are a hell lot luckier. They can burgle a man's wardrobe without repercussion. They don't have to spend so many words defending themselves, well, unless they are, like Mark, actually a man! So much for gender egalitarianism

* To make it even more confusing, there is the intersection of transsexual and drag queens: those of us who genuinely enjoy playing the other gender's role and don't mind to make a living out of it. The point is that we are all in a continuous spectrum. A clear distinction is by definition impossible. Is magenta red? Is fuchsia red too? And lavender?

Though not precisely a first post, #1 Welcome to CFC (as a poster, anyway) and #2 I think you've nicely proven that you're not a double-login.

 

[markangeloc]

Couldn't I happen to be a lurker who is a male-to-female crossdresser?

Well, to 'prove' that I'm not a sock puppet of Mark, I'll say that I didn't like him when he said this:



There are those of us who are happy with their gender: masculine men and feminine women.

There are those of us who savor the other gender's attire, but have no intention to imitate their mannerism, such as a lady who wears thousers or a gent who wears high-heels - granted the latter is not quite as common as the former now, but you know 200 years ago it was the opposite. See here: http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/guys/

There are those of us who feel good in the other gender's role, but are content with their born sex. These people, if they don the other sex's clothing, are crossdressers. If they don't don the other sex's clothing, or at least not to the point that people might mistaken them for the other sex, are effeminate men and tomboys.

There are those of us who believe that they were outrightly born into the wrong body: the transsexual people.

Then there are those of us who are happy with their genetic sex but took hormone anyway, because they were forced at a young age (some of the Thai Kathoeys, or so I've heard, in a way similar to the castrati in Middle Ages), or because they chose to so that they can get into the film industry. And there are those of us who don't take hormone at all, just wear the clothing when they are on stage: the drag queens. These people are mostly cisgender and their transsexualism are "acquired"*.


Now, Mark clearly doesn't like transsexual performers and denounced them as "transvestites". That creates a problem since the definition of the word "transvestite" has never been agreed upon. Some use the word to refer to transsexual or drag performers; some refer to transsexual fetishist, who derive sexual pleasure from clothing; and some refer to, erm, those of us who just enjoy wearing a pretty dress. But, the word now has a strong negative connotation, so those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men invented another word, "crossdresser", to describe themselves. And then Mark denounced crossdressers as well. And those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men are again left without a name.

Well, that is not very convenient is it? So I would like to, as one of the TOUWJEWAPDBSWTWTSTARM, respectfully ask Mark to stop this persecution. I like to wear a skirt, or a pair of high-heels, though I don't want to dress provocatively and don't wear 10 inches heels with a 4 inches platform. Nor would I want to perform on a stage. I study theoretical computer science and mathematical logic, just like any other normal geek guy. Sometimes I feel feminine, yet more often I feel masculine and want to conquer the world (hey I play Civilization!). I would never have the urge to have a sex reassignment surgery, because I enjoy the boy side of me just as much. Nor would I be happy if someone forbids me from dressing as a girl, because that's equally a part of me. Am I respectable? I hope so. Am I a transsexual? No. Am I a crossdresser? Long as you don't mean I'm a pornstar. Am I a transgenderist? Well that's the newest term and hopefully not tainted yet...

Oh damn, women are a hell lot luckier. They can burgle a man's wardrobe without repercussion. They don't have to spend so many words defending themselves, well, unless they are, like Mark, actually a man! So much for gender egalitarianism


* To make it even more confusing, there is the intersection of transsexual and drag queens: those of us who genuinely enjoy playing the other gender's role and don't mind to make a living out of it. The point is that we are all in a continuous spectrum. A clear distinction is by definition impossible. Is magenta red? Is fuchsia red too? And lavender?

Lassia,

I do not dislike cross dresser or transvestites, I advocate for all. My repsonse was to a poster who compared transsexuals to the porn industry's personel. Unfortenetly, the world only sees what they want and will learn about an individual and place them all in a box. I have many Cross dressers for friends and have invited them in my home. I have many drag queens as friends, and believe that all under the transgender umbrella are subject to a continuum or spectrum during the hormonal bathing. So, I am sorry you got the wrong impression of me, through the words that are so limiting and sometimes taken in the wrong context on line. But do know that I am very much part of the GLBT and Identify as a transsexual bisexual man who cares very much for all of his colorful family under the trans umbrella.

Mark Angelo

 

[Brighteye]

those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men invented another word, "crossdresser", to describe themselves. And then Mark denounced crossdressers as well. And those-of-us-who-just-enjoy-wearing-a-pretty-dress-but-still-want-the-world-to-see-them-as-respectable-men are again left without a name.
...Am I a transgenderist? Well that's the newest term and hopefully not tainted yet...

Oh damn, women are a hell lot luckier. They can burgle a man's wardrobe without repercussion.

Don't you think that whatever word you choose will have the same connotations? Is it really worthwhile thinking up new terms, when each word will inevitably acquire the baggage of the old, since it describes the same thing, as well as some extra baggage of 'political correctness'?
Do you think that changing the words can change peoples' minds?

Your traffic analogy is away from the mark and point. Either way, it is not a signal but hormones that changes the pathway. Exposure to androgen will create a boy from the initial female Fetus. I know the facts, I have done the research and read many article that have provided me with the information...no matter how much research I present, you will interpret it as you like.

How is my analogy off the mark?
Are hormones not a signal then? You used that term yourself; I simply borrowed it as one on which we could agree.
Exposure to androgen will create a boy. Exposure to lack of androgen will create a girl then. One path or the other is chosen at that point.
I don't see a problem with my analogy, and nor do I see why you are so irate about hormones when this doesn't affect the importance of hormones.
And yes, of course I will interpret research and facts how I like. I do have a mind of my own. I like to use it. No-one has shown how my interpretation is wrong.

Shall I create another analogy?
Imagine that I plan to fly to a city, but I could choose to drive. I am currently packing for my holiday. Am I a flyer? At what point do I become a flyer? I think it's when I start flying. At this point I am a flyer, and not a driver.
You seem to be suggesting that I'm a flyer even when still packing for my holiday.

 

[lassia]

Though not precisely a first post, #1 Welcome to CFC (as a poster, anyway) and #2 I think you've nicely proven that you're not a double-login.

Thanks

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Discussion about language and meaning of words etc split off and can be found from here.
Let's keep this one on topic.

 

[Gladi]

I don't need doctors and evidence for the blinding obvious. I mean, you are born one gender or another, and you usually stick to it.

You know, maybe gender is bit more than just some outward signs? Even without intersex individuals, we have cases of hormons functioning badly in pegnancy.

Plus, the burden of the proof is on the positive, not the negative. I have viewed your sources, and do not see much truth behind them. I stick to my original statement, that people thinking they are of another gender is a mental condition (and here's your problem, I never say a mental condition, especially this one, is bad, you just automatically assume I say that. ) and until you can prove that wrong, I will stick by it.

You have seen those medical journals in this thread and found them inadequate? Can you as a medical expert tell us why? Are the researchers behind them charlatans? Faulty testing samples? Inconclusive data?

Plus, what exactly is a mental condition? Transsexuality as shown in those journals before is a physical condition of one brain. It is not kind of choice. Of course with attitude like this...

I did know that. And you got your Y chromosome or you didn't, it's not a choice of yours to make. If my child was born disabled, I'd leave him that way because that's how he was born, that's how the genes worked out.

Well I apologize for eating solids and being able to use consonants in speech, oh and not having contents of my stomach coming out of my nose.

 

[Chiyu]

I don't have any particular questions, I'd just like to congratulate you on your succesful transformation and wish you good luck with your free life that has just begun!

Also, I'm glad to see a liberal topic like this on a social forum like this. People often fear what they don't understand, so I hope this topic will make the 'conservative' (or people who use the bible to guide their lifes) people think about it and reconsider.

 

[markangeloc]

I don't have any particular questions, I'd just like to congratulate you on your succesful transformation and wish you good luck with your free life that has just begun!

Also, I'm glad to see a liberal topic like this on a social forum like this. People often fear what they don't understand, so I hope this topic will make the 'conservative' (or people who use the bible to guide their lifes) people think about it and reconsider.

Thank you for your well wishes and for celebrating with me the ability to live and be happy. Education is important and it is the key to unite people with different beliefs and mind sets. Tolerance and understanding is important to create peace, something we are lacking in our universe. All the Bible versus and all world religion are failing to bring humanity closer, it seems we are fading further apart and the blood shed is flowing. Communication my friends and the understanding that we are different and can cohabitate under the same sky will open up a new world with hope of peace and tranquility.

I feel that nature creates people like me for a reason, be thankful of what you got and be considerate of others.

In deep thoughts

Mark Angelo

 

[serulin]

Wow, this is the first time I have seen anyone come out and answer questions like this on the internet about sex change! As a very curious person I have been looking for info all kinds of info on this topic from psychological to physical aspects and this was indeed a very interesting thread to read because questions like this or even the whole sex change issue isn't "socially" accepted yet and the information on it is scarce.

With that said. You mentioned that you cannot ejaculate but you can still orgasm. Does that mean you have no refraction time--As in you can have multiple orgasms?

Thanks!