Important definitions & distinctions

from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

transvestite...noun..."a person, typically a man, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes considered appropriate to the opposite sex."

transsexual...noun..."a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex."

By the latter definition one is a transsexual who believes they were born with the wrong set of reproductory organs, simple as that. It is indeed possible to be a transsexual without actually having had the slew of pre-surgical hormone therapies and ensuing operations. I will not divulge whether I have had the operations or not, that's simply too personal -- at least for now.

I've not read it but I understand that Peter Ackroyd's Dressing Up is an excellent, plentifully illustrated, brief history of transvestism.

From what I read, Ackroyd covers all the major bases, examining the phenomenon from anthropological, psychological, sociological and cultural standpoints. While the book rather naturally focuses on discussion of the sociological and cultural/artistic expressions of transvestism (including a brief but highly interesting chapter on transvestism in literature), Ackroyd is not afraid to speculate on the psychological motivations of transvestites; he's at his best when considering the differences between transvestism and "drag", as well as the psychological distinction between those who dress in clothing associated with the opposite gender for reasons of psychological compulsion or sexual fetish and those who dress thus as part and parcel of transexualism and a core gender identity differing from that assigned at birth. Although the book was written in 1978, Ackroyd's views on transvestism, his sociological and psychological insights, are sensitive and sophisticated; certainly, he's a far more sympathetic, less judgmental and biased observer than many of the psychiatric experts of the time.

The book's apparently out of print but well worth hunting down Or, for that matter, snatching up, should you run across a copy. (Thanks to user marietherese!)

You know how some people's genetic makeup is slightly skewed so that they're born with, say, an extra pair of fingers or toes? Well, you may not believe this, but trust me, it's true, I've a close friend who was born with (now how can I tactfully communicate this?) well, he was born with two, count 'em, TWO, packages. And I'm not talking FedEx of UPS if you know what I mean. I wonder if the book mentioned above (thank you Slick for bringing it to our attention!) deals with this type of biological/reproductive peculiarity. My friend, thank God he has such a great sense of humour -- he's such a jokester -- told me straightfaced that his geneticist said what he had when he was born was a rare disorder known as "doubladictionosis"...and I believed him! Oh dear, I'm so gullible. And if you must know (buh-leeeve me, I had to know, don't really care if it's none of my business, so I inquired), he had a little extra snip snip when he was circumcised, an amputation of sorts I presume, so no wonder he's got so many gender identity issues having had the axe, so to speak, taken to his extra package at such a young age.

>3 absurdeist: Enrique, how could they tell which was the *extra* package with sufficient certainty to make such a drastic solution safe for his future happiness?

I get the vapours just imagining such a thing. The hideous consequences of an error...!!

Hmmmm. I've got to admit, I never considered which one the surgeon should have amputated.

However, since the one left (or was that the right one?) works mighty fine, I gotta say that decapitatin' surge knew exactly what he was a doin'!

Pleasure to make your aquaintance, richardderus!

Cheers, old thing.

The name of the group was irresistable to my ever-curious nature. As I am a single-sexed male in a male's body, who happens to dislike Christianity, I was simply verschmeckled about the nature of the discussion that would take place in this group.

So far I'm utterly shocked and have had to resort to my smelling salts sixty-one times in the past few minutes.

No, really!

Only 61 times?

Well, I think that breaks the record!

So sad the discussion here seems to have mostly abated. But, thank you for joining anyway. Who knows? We may get this thing back up and running yet!

Pass the smelling salts here, old boy.

I am beschmottled about your use of the verb 'verrschmeckled'. According to Pimm's Deutsche Worterbuch of 1876, this verb is transitive, meaning, to slice or chew. I find this to be an amazing coincidence, given the gory nature of the topic thus far.

I met a Taiwanese chap, a looong time ago (if you use your imagination you could probably see how cats can easily get hold of this kind of information) who at his circumcision as a baby, had had his package entirely chopped off by a drunken and unsteady village quack. I kid you not.

Now that somewhat narrows one's choices, doesn't it?

Pfermisslet I would be
If it were me.

>7 absurdeist: well, old bean, the topic (while trenchant) is not one likely to lend itself to long, involved chitty-chatty posts. Kind of self-limiting. Re-starting the group could mean offering some sort of appealing group read...?

>8 tomcatMurr: Signor Murr, so glad someone noticed my polyglot pun!

I've heard that story before...my paternal grandmother was the daughter of a Jewish circus owner in the Upper Midwest (Zimmerman's Circus); they had a Half-Pint Harry, who was over six feet tall, so one can imagine why he was so yclept. Poor bastard. It was the 19th century, so he had NO options. The mohel in question was simply inept in his case, not pixilated or drunk.