This is mostly abandoned and the previously begun striking out process is left uncompleted.

It does make you a homosexual which in turn makes you a faggot.

Dear stranger,

If you made this statement without actually consulting anything except my initial question, which did not imply I tend to female homosexuality, then please fuck you. Transsexuality does not imply homosexuality. This is so basic stuff I feel silly explaining it.

Yes, if you use the notion that one’s performed gender (which changes in transition) is used as reference for “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality”, then most trans people who transition are, either before or after it, homosexual. This is not true of truly neutral pansexuals (or bisexuals) or those lacking such affection entirely. The idea that transsexuality necessitates homosexuality is, frankly, absurd.

Sincerest disdain,

TR

PS.:

Why is she advertising herself in the first place?

First, why I am seeking attention is well documented here and you could ask me directly if you actually cared. Second, the wording here using “advertising” sounds pointlessly like sexualization of women. If you meant it in that way, fuck off.

Striking out: After considering some arguments in favour of the term “bisexuality”, i’d rather not display such passive-aggressive disdain for it any longer.

Disturbed.

Ah yes, gender dysphoria! It’s actually just a mental illness! Now we can all go home and be cisgendered again. Well, except that the best treatment is transitioning.

Striking out: I cannot make a coherent argument that would absolutely convince myself to prefer “cisgender” over “cisgendered”, but i do currently do so. Additionally, i used a definition of “cisgender” here that inherently excludes all transsexual people; as in, with this definition, being transsexual makes one “transgender” too, regardless of one’s gender expression, etc. I am aware that different definitions exist. Considering this, if i wrote this post today, i’d probably say “and be cisgender and cissexual again” as a less problematic and prescriptive alternative.

From the conversation that brought us “chop your dick off”:

chop your dick off

problem solved really

so true stranger 1

he doesnt deserve his dick

only a man who wants a girl deserves such an amazing thing

dicks are for chicks

very true

not dudes assholes

he likes assholes

“he” or “it”

i’d say it

no no, they

or thing

Circlejerking at its finest. Let’s get at it:

he doesnt deserve his dick

What a pointless and idiotic notion.

only a man who wants a girl deserves such an amazing thing

As they failed to realize, I would want a girl, but that doesn’t actually matter because, first, I’m not a man, and second, the notion is still pointless and idiotic.

dicks are for chicks

Has anyone difficulties seeing the ambiguity of that statement here?

he likes assholes

Another unfounded and independently of truth value absolutely pointless statement. (I have no such experiences with assholes that I could say I like them.)

i’d say it

or thing

Oh yes. Dehumanization and objectification.

no no, they

Finally something we can agree on!

Striking out: First and third one, i prefer not to use “idiotic” any longer. (I would edit the title, but i don’t know how to strike out words in it.) Second, i mimicked the stranger’s phrasing here, but i should at least have put that into quotes, or better yet, clarified why i used such phrasing right away. To let it stay like that was simply wrong; it made me refer to myself as an adult while infantilising other women.

Just so that allies and others considering trans identification know: medical MtF measures do not usually include literally “chopping your dick off” as one stranger so eloquently put it. If you want to know more, research the details for yourself. That’s just a common error I noticed now again. I admittedly made that erroneous assumption myself earlier.

Striking out: “MtF” and “FtM” are problematic language in that they too claim that i am or at least was “male-bodied”.

Specifically, I have used the term “faggot” to refer to male homosexuals and “dyke” to refer to female homosexuals. On one hand, that is just reclaiming those words. (Specifically dyke which I actually identify as, but also faggot which many call me incorrectly - as in “Not as if there’d be anything wrong with that, but, no, I’m not a faggot”.) On the other hand, those are the terms primarily used on Omegle, and I did use them with scare quotes and everything - and, obviously, they are also direct quotes off the collective Omegle stranger.

I dislike being denounced as “tranny” or “shemale” or “he-she” or “dickgirl” or (worst of all with these implications) “trap” in the same way I dislike being denounced as “dyke” and “faggot”. (Admittedly I might dislike the trans-specific insults more.) In that way, I think I can truthfully say I can relate. Regardless, I will keep using the terms as I have used them til now. If the tumblr messaging thing works, you’re free to discuss this with me though.

Striking out: Although i have not modified this policy yet, i want to say that the striked-out part here is too ambiguous for my tastes now. So after acknowledging that it was wrong, let me clarify that it was not my intention to set myself up as someone who ‘owns’ the term “faggot” and is therefore most entitled to reclaim it. Considering that it is primarily used against persons perceived as male, and that i do not identify as male while i am less and less perceived as such now, i certainly am not most entitled to reclaim the term.

i dont care about your sex life stop trying to make me accept you

First, this isn’t just my sex life. There might be things on here that are decidedly about my sex life, but saying that I’m none of “faggot”, “weird”, “perverted male” or “sinner” and that my body is currently male but won’t stay that way doesn’t seem to be. So, to sum it up: too many of these issues are not about our sex life, and trying to accuse us of flaunting our sex life whenever we speak out for, well, pretty much everything, is a silencing tactic that I do not respond well to.

Second, get a fucking grip. This is Omegle!

Striking out: “Male-bodied” language again. Might add that “flaunting our sex life” is a common silencing tactic not only in cissexist contexts, but at least in heterosexist ones as well.

If your definition of “trans woman” includes “man dressed as woman” or anything equivalent to that: You are wrong.

(Not that I have anything against crossdressers. I’d even have identified myself as one given some constraints. I just want to make a point of not misgendering trans people, that is, of accepting them as individuals of their gender.)

Striking out: “Gender” is a very ambiguous term with multiple definitions. I’d prefer to say “gender identity” here.

(This all from the same stranger:)

i don’t believe in gender

trans is just

not right

you should be happy in whatever gender you were born into

otherwise, you are half a person

Seriously, what’s up with that? If you “don’t believe” in gender, how can you then turn around and justify a statement that sounds dehumanizing and judgemental by invoking gender specifically? I can understand (but don’t agree with) people who tell me they don’t believe in gender and therefore insurance shouldn’t cover any of the measures I’ll want it to cover, but using such reasoning to explain to me why I’m “half a person” seems preposterous. I can even understand similarly those who have irrational essentialist notions of gender and thus tell me I’m only “half a person” in rejecting the gender commonly associated with my current sex; I won’t bother to disagree with their reasoning from these assumptions - I’ll disagree with the assumptions.

What this incident was motivated by is probably just plain old transphobia.

Striking out: First, see explanations regarding “sex” and “male-bodied” language elsewhere.

Second, i prefer to call it “cissexism” now. It is true that allegations of ableism in terms ending in “-phobia” which do not refer to clinical phobias are often brought up to derail, but through honest discussions of the topic i have come to the conclusion that we should prefer to say “cissexism” over “transphobia”.

And as the other stranger asks them what that means, they explain they like “literally everything” and list “boys, girls, mtf, ftm, genderqueer”. Listing, for example, “genderqueer” as a distinct non-binary gender is fine by me, but I think I can speak for many “MtF” and “FtM” trans people when I say that we’d appreciate being treated as one of boys, girls, or genderqueers too.

On the other hand, I see that pre-transition and during transition, as well as for some trans people who partially choose not to alter their body, differentiating between those who are bodily “boys, girls, mtf, ftm” can arguably make sense. In the context, however, it wasn’t unambiguous whether the stranger referred to that, or made an othering and disagreeable statement instead.

Striking out: First one should say “gender identity”.

Second one “genderqueer people”; even if it might not be necessary i prefer not to employ nouning in these ways. Just “genderqueer” would arguably work here because it could be read as an adjective. (Additional remark: i generally prefer not to refer to adults as if they are children, but if it is done to men and women equally then at least it won’t be problematic due to misogyny as is otherwise often the case.)

The third one is due to my rejection of “male-bodied” language again. The paragraph might have some valid point but such language is definitely problematic.

it’s your body, do whatever you want to it…

This is unfortunately missing the point that I’d prefer our insurance to cover various costs associated with some of the measures I count to doing whatever I want to it, and thus have to prove to the institutionalized medicine that these measures are psychologically necessary and the best treatment. So while your probable intent is appreciated, I do not exactly agree with your message. But hey, it’s definitively better than wanting me dead!

Striking out: One particularly useful term i did not know of yet when writing this originally is “pathologisation”. And here’s a good explanation of why intent is (not) magic. Just wanted to add these remarks.

Thank you. (I would ask you to either properly inform yourself about trans issues or not voice vague and uncertain ideas about them though.) Keep in mind that due to the nature of this project, you will probably always be underrepresented here. Please don’t assume I overlook you, your replies are read and appreciated.

Striking out: Again, nothing explicit, but the “ally” terminology and the very concept of being an “ally” are arguably problematic; it is at least certain that the “ally” label is often appropriated by those who cannot be considered “allies” at all.

Just for the record, I’m somewhat weirded out by those I have met as of yet with a fetishism for trans people. That isn’t to say you can’t be a decent person and have that fetish, it just means I haven’t met and recognized you as such yet. (Going on a tangent, I am a fetishist myself, though for unrelated things.)

Striking out: Nothing to explicitly remove here, but i have come to believe that fetishising trans* and/or transsexual persons arguably is always problematic. This would be due to the associated sexualisation and objectification.

Additionally, one might remark that such fetishes arguably are not strictly “fetishes” in the original sense of that word, but that’s not important.

Some allies and interested folk responded with queries like this:

so trans woman… does that mean female to male? or male to female?

This is such a trivial question I feel silly even answering it. However, assuming it crops up a lot, I’ll be nice and answer it: I am currently male-bodied and don’t intend to stay that way.

To clarify and reject some common misunderstandings about this, I am not “becoming” a woman, I’m not looking forward to a “gender change” (sic) and I am not intending to keep my penis as such. (Though some trans women do keep theirs, and that’s fine by me.)

Sex is what my body is like (except the brain possibly) whereas gender is the identity that I am and to a degree the socially constructed role that I (want to) perform. Trans persons do not generally change their gender; what they (want to) change is their sex.

Striking out: “Male-bodied” and “female-bodied” language is very problematic. In short: My body is female and always has been, because i am.

The last paragraph ignored that first, there are many definitions of “sex” and “gender” respectively, and that second, again, to speak of (say) a woman’s male-sex body is problematic.

Additionally, saying that trans* and/or transsexual persons universally do not change their gender would be problematic in that some of them do describe themselves as changing their gender, not to mention those identifying as genderfluid specifically.

One stranger responded, during the course of a conversation, with this:

i feel like you should be happy with what god gave you

As implied in my rejection of the concept of sin, I am an atheist. (I previously preferred identifying as agnostic, but it’s not that much of a difference.) The concept of “God” is equally ill-defined and meaningless to me. If God disagrees, He is free to show up to discuss this with me personally.

it’s not like anything they can give you would work as well as what you had either

But wouldn’t it work a thousand times better just by not utterly disgusting me?

Striking out: The atheism and agnosticism thing is a minor one. I now prefer to identify as “agnostic atheist”, which is synonymous with “weak atheist”, as opposed to “gnostic atheist” or its synonym “strong atheist”. That is, i don’t claim that there are no supernatural deities at all, because some such concepts are not falsifiable. (I might add that after this i probably capitalized “God” and “He” when referring to it the way i did not out of respect but rather to mock the notion.)

The second striking out is because my decisions about wishing any trans* genital surgeries or not are really no one’s business.