“The Manufactured Product”

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:41 am

OK as promised here is thread No 3 of three…entitled “The manufactured product”
I was originally going to call it repression, but I liked Sallie’s definition better.

My dilemma (if it can be called that) is getting my head around the issue that many of us claim that we were made this way. (I am not disputing the legitimately of that statement). What I am disputing is if that is true, then why is it some of us need to change that?

Once one begins to use such things as blockers of male hormones, or injecting female hormones into our bodies, SRS etc. are we not messing with that picture?

Until we are able to stop fighting with ourselves and our maker over the fact that we are and always will be cross-dressers. Are not repressing part of who we are? Could it not be true that once we understand that… there is a tendency to begin repressing the male side? Could this not alter the way we see things and serve to push us farther than we would originally go? At what point do we become a Manufactured Product?

Love,
Darlene.

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:03 am

Hi Darlene,

I have to sit this one out.

It would be impossible for me to comment on me messing a manufactured product being that I'm taking t-blockers.

I feel pretty defensive about this since I don't know of anyone else taking t-blockers than me on this forum and you brought it up. So I read that as, "Don't you think Beauty is messing with the manufactured product if we're meant to be this way?" That's just too close to home. I also say calling ourselves manufactured products I don't like. Then again, I'm doing my best to stop typing. lol!

I'll sit on the fence and watch people tell me about me, but I had to say that since it really took off a bit of my skin because it was so close to home.

Beauty

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:36 am

Hi Beauty,

Oye!! I can tell that this really has affected you hon,

by your misinterpretation of what I wrote.

(sorry about that.)

I did not say "Don't you think Beauty is messing with the manufactured product. I asked the question; can we become a manufactured product by repressing the male side?

This is not meant to be a talk about Beauty thread. In fact I had hoped that you could contribute to this thread. (by presenting your side of the picture) I am not calling anyone a manufactured product,

but I am asking the question can we become one.

I have not seen this issue discussed any where before.

I hope you will be able to take a step back and reread my post.

Love,
Darlene.

CJ · Post by CJ » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:54 am

Hi all,

I can see what you're saying, Darlene, about our becoming "manufactured products" (and I'm trying to put this in relation to your idea of "repression"). Maybe you're trying to discover the boundaries between transsexualism and transvestism? If I understand correctly, you're supposing that people whose gender identity is so dissonant with the body they were born with that they feel the need to make physical alterations are somehow "repressing" their true, male, crossdresser nature (as opposed to being a "manufactured [T-girl] product") and, in so doing, going against what a "creator" intended for them to be? Am I reading this right?

If so, I have two objections to this notion. One is a purely logical one; namely, what's to say that someone who alters his or her body to more closely match a felt identity is not going, precisely, in the direction he or she was meant to go (or that a creator intended them to go), in the same way as does a crossdresser who's satisfied with the physiological status quo? The second one is psychological; all human beings naturally tend toward their own happiness and well-being and there's no reason this shouldn't include actions or behaviours they think will bring them closer to that goal--even though you, yourself, may see those actions and behaviours as being inimical to what you may consider happiness and well-being.

I'm glad, Darlene, that strictly wearing women's clothes in the privacy of your own home helps you to meet needs of yours that cannot be met any other way; doing so contributes to your happiness and well-being. By the same token, there are those of us out there who have needs that cannot be met in any other way than by taking steps to "re-align" our bodies (by making physiological changes to them) with our most profound sense of self (a sense of self that may or may not be the result of what a creator chose for us).

Taking a T-blocker is on a par with taking a painkiller; the aim is to reduce suffering--the latter, a suffering in one's nervous system, the former a suffering in one's self-identity.

Be sure, Darlene, that you're willing to give to others chances that you're willing to give yourself. It's only fair.

Love,
CJ

Cathy L. Anderson · Post by **Cathy L. Anderson** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:04 am

Darlene,

Darlene wrote:My dilemma (if it can be called that) is getting my head around the issue that many of us claim that we were made this way...ifthat is true, then why is it some of us need to change that?

This is a very intriguing question. My own 'working hypothesis' (which I don't hold very strongly) is that CDs and TVs are a genetic specialization of the human race--a third sex that has evolved to fill socially useful niches--priests, shamans, healers, astrologers, singers, actors, etc. So in this respect I--and I'm only speaking personally--I see it as a gift, and feel I am being truest to the nature of my greater Self by not taking hormones (though I have been very sorely 'tempted' on many occasions to do so).

On the other hand, I think CJ's post is right on. Why should we should be limited by genetics? Who's to say that evolution is anything more than controlled chaos--i.e., it is not, of necessity, either moral or kind. Do I want some "selfish gene" to run my life?

So it's a tricky question, and perhaps the answer depends on the person.

I'm going to start a new thread to discuss CJ's excellent comments about a "most profound sense of self" as this seems to me to be a more general subject than the current thread. Maybe that isn't necessary, but I'd prefer to err in the direction of courtesy.

Cathy

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:31 am

In part CJ wrote: I can see what you're saying, Darlene, about our becoming "manufactured products" (and I'm trying to put this in relation to your idea of "repression"). Maybe you're trying to discover the boundaries between transsexualism and transvestism? If I understand correctly, you're supposing that people whose gender identity is so dissonant with the body they were born with that they feel the need to make physical alterations are somehow "repressing" their true, male, crossdresser nature (as opposed to being a "manufactured [T-girl] product") and, in so doing, going against what a "creator" intended for them to be? Am I reading this right?

No you are not reading me right CJ.

If you hold the belief that you were created the way you are, or the way your creator intended, then you are left with no option but to include all of who you are. Including both the male side and the female side, without changing anything.

I do not hold that belief. My creator initially created a perfect world. After the fall of man we were born into a corrupt world. So I do not need to believe that I/we were born the way our creator originally intended. What I need to believe is that my creator has the compassion and is providing the grace I need to live my life the way I have turned out, imperfect. And the same thing may well hold true for those who are different than me. It has to because no two of us are exactly alike.

I tell you right now that if I dressed to the nines all the time I too would be among these who are seeking more. I was once there before I found my balance.

For most of us this thing is progressive; that should tell us something. The point of my post that I want people to look at is that it is possible to go to the other extreme and repress the male side. And that may be as harmful as repressing the female side. No one has talked about this since I have been here. Yet it is a very real possibility that this has been the cause of some people going father than they would have gone had they not done that.

If we are not willing to consider this then I can not see how one can think they are balanced. I don’t give a rat’s backside where one is at in their journey. Nor am I attempting to define any lines. My question is have you considered the possibility that you may have or might yet repress the male side more than might have been necessary? Our creator is not in the business of manufacturing.

Be sure, Darlene, that you're willing to give to others chances that you're willing to give yourself. It's only fair.

I don’t understand CJ. You mean I have that kind of control over others? Or others have that kind of control over me? Is that not something each one takes for themselves?

Peace,
Darlene.

Post by **DonnaT** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:38 pm

Darlene wrote:The point of my post that I want people to look at is that it is possible to go to the other extreme and repress the male side. And that may be as harmful as repressing the female side.

I agree with Cathy in the idea that many of us are a third gender in between the male and female, more of a dual gender.

Repression of either side is, I reckon, based on where we 'feel' we fall in that range between male and female. And probably also based on how we desire to be seen by society.

Some are lucky to find their balance, others are not. Some know that their balance can't be reached for one reason or another, such as being in a committed relationship with a wife.

In answer to the question, it is possible to go too far by repressing one side or the other.

For example, there are a number instances of CDs going to the greatest extreme to repress their male side via GRS only to find that they made a mistake. (Note: repressing the male side does not necessarily mean by medical means, but this is one example.)

The question then becomes: How does one stop going too far before going to far?

Oregon (SO) · Post by **Oregon (SO)** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:12 pm

Hi Darlene,

This is sme really deep stuff and since I am a gg that likes my gender I really cannot comment.

What I can comment on is this.... Is a gg (or guy) who gets breasts implants, or liposuction, or any other number of plastic surgeries to alter the person (s)he is also becoming a manufactured product.

What about coloing ones hair, cutting ones hair, tatooing, piercings...Are we altering ourselves as well by shaving off body hair? Clippsing nails and toenails, cleaning out our earwax?

I know some of that might seem a bit silly and funny to say, but almost every human being alters themselves to some extent every single day. I like to denigh the brunettehair/brown eyes I was born with. Is this messing with who I really am meant to be?

I know having gential surgery and coloring ones hair are not the same, but they do alter the person you are. Some times permanently, via tatooing, sometimes only momentarly, colored contacts.

I just think that since we each are so unique in our headspace and desire to feel like we think we should feel it cannot be wrong.

that goes from having a orcidectomy to getting ones legs waxed.
hugs
kathy in canada

Darlene wrote:OK as promised here is thread No 3 of three…entitled “The manufactured product”
I was originally going to call it repression, but I liked Sallie’s definition better.

My dilemma (if it can be called that) is getting my head around the issue that many of us claim that we were made this way. (I am not disputing the legitimately of that statement). What I am disputing is if that is true, then why is it some of us need to change that?

Once one begins to use such things as blockers of male hormones, or injecting female hormones into our bodies, SRS etc. are we not messing with that picture?

Until we are able to stop fighting with ourselves and our maker over the fact that we are and always will be cross-dressers. Are not repressing part of who we are? Could it not be true that once we understand that… there is a tendency to begin repressing the male side? Could this not alter the way we see things and serve to push us farther than we would originally go? At what point do we become a Manufactured Product?

Love,
Darlene.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:41 pm

Hi Darlene,

It sounds as if you are saying that your balance is the perfect balance, and you don't see why others don't find this same balance you have found? And that somehow we should be willing too accept our bodies and minds as they were created.

I wonder if you would expect a person born with a defective heart valve to forego surgery to replace that faulty valve with an artificial one for fear of becoming a "manufactured product"?

I don't see the need to crossdress or the need to change ones body to match ones mind as the problem. I see the problem as society's inability to accept such persons as not being defective. Indeed if society embraced us as we are, we would not be having this discussion.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Nicole Pearce · Post by **Nicole Pearce** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:04 pm

Beauty-

I too am taking t-blockers, so you're not the only one

I would be interested in what effeects it has had on you. I take 100 mg. of spiro daily for about a year now, so I fell as you about the 'why do we do this'. I only do what I think is right for me...

Nicole (aka Kristi)

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:13 pm

Hi all,

While I have chosen to respond directly to Elizabeth here I am responding to all.

It sounds as if you are saying that your balance is the perfect balance, and you don't see why others don't find this same balance you have found? And that somehow we should be willing too accept our bodies and minds as they were created.

You also are not reading me right Elizabeth. If you reread my posts you will see that I said I don’t give a rat’s backside where one is at in their journey. Nor am I attempting to define any lines. My question is have you considered the possibility that you may have or might yet repress the male side more than might have been necessary?

I really don’t know how I can be any clearer than that?

I wonder if you would expect a person born with a defective heart valve to forego surgery to replace that faulty valve with an artificial one for fear of becoming a "manufactured product"?

Only if you literally take the position that this is the way our creator intended (made) us to be. But not if you believe that we may have been born defective. And this just might not be the way our creator originally desired.

I don't see the need to cross dress or the need to change ones body to match ones mind as the problem. I see the problem as society's inability to accept such persons as not being defective. Indeed if society embraced us as we are, we would not be having this discussion.

While there may be some truth to that the fact remains that we are the ones left with the problem. But being that it is impossible to be perfect, then every one of us is defective to some degree. We all have our warts in spite of how much we would like it to be otherwise.

I am not here to argue I think you all know me better than that. I don’t stick around for that kind of stuff. It solves nothing.

I am asking you if you have found a balance where ever you are at? I am asking you have you ever considered it? I am asking you that if it is not possible (for you) to obtain a perfect balance, which might be the case. Do you attempt to maintain anything that is close to one?

This thread is designed to get people to think about this. It is not meant to be any more than that. Most of you should know by now that is often the way I post. I am not interested in spending too much time with those who become defensive about it.

I don’t know if I have maintained a perfect balance (probably not). But it is something I try and use as a guide line. If one aims for that they stand a chance of coming closer than they would if they don’t.

Peace To all,

Darlene.

Loretta Ann · Post by **Loretta Ann** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:26 pm

In part DonnaT wrote: I agree with Cathy in the idea that many of us are a third gender in between the male and female, more of a dual gender.

That may well be true. Your post is pretty well spot on IMO.

Thanks for the contribution.

Love,
Darlene.

Sally · Post by **Sally** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:29 pm

I've said this many times over the years and I say again. I believe that each person is the best qualified to judge their own person and who they really are and what's going on inside them, because it's impossible for anyone else ( no matter how many Degrees or Diplomas they hold) to really get inside someone and know exactly how and what they feel.

When I say to someone that the image I presented when I was born does not correspond with the image which my brain tells me, I'm telling them something which I feel as a presence, it's just something which is, it's not something which I can hold in my hand and put on the table in front of someone and physically show them. I can and have talked for hours on this, both in private and on the public stage, but for those people who (and it's the majority) were not born as I was, it's impossible to give them living proof of how it is. It gets down to the fact they either believe what I'm saying or they don't, each has to judge my sincerity and that goes for professionals as well as the general public.

As for the statement, " Many of us were made this way, then why is it some of us need to change that", well it's a subject we could and indeed I have, talked about for hours and hours, but I'll try and explain some of the things I believe, in a short a time as I can.

In the course of our development as human beings, we acquire many traits which arise from our experience, and constitute our conditioned responses. We learn that some things we do will gain the approval of others, and appropriate rewards, while different actions will result in varying degrees of disapproval, or punishment, and this shapes us over time. There are some who believe that this conditioning is the key to understanding a person, and they're right to some extent. To assert that this is all there is to a person, however, one must assume that we are all born with a blank slate for a personality, and that everyone is equipped with a similar set of skills to be developed. From what I have seen, though, conditioning, personality traits, and abilities, all manifest independently.

So, as we develop as children we become the 'manufactured product' of our teachers. What they implant into our brains as children may not necessarily correspond with our natural thinking which is controlled by the 'blue print' laid down in our brain before birth. But as children we don't have the ability to speak up and get our message across that what we feel isn't how they are teaching us as to right or wrong. My point now is that when we grow up into independant thinking human beings, and indeed even during childhood, the things others are teaching us as to their belief of what is right or wrong and what should be or not be, may not correspond with what is going on inside of us. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole, you can force it in but it'll never be as right as the natural one which was meant to fit.

Which would we suggest is the most powerful force? Nature and what comes naturally to us or what someone else has taught us or put another way, manufactured and transplanted their beliefs into our brain.

I learnt at a very early age in childhood that although I was told I was a boy, doing 'boy things' for some reason didn't make me feel good the same way as doing 'girl things' did. I also learnt that if I did girl things or wore girl clothes then that made my 'teachers' angry, so I learned the art of deception and deceit to acquire the feelings which seemed more natural or right. This was part of 'their manufacturing' of me. We tend to naturally move towards those things which bring happiness and good feelings, whether or not we are taught those things are not 'right'.

For the sake of brevity, I'll finish by saying that I don't believe that my taking female hormones and T blockers has made me into a manufactured product, it was a loosely used term at the time, I believe they have taken me back closer to where I was meant to be before 'they manufactured me'. These actions have brought me closer to the real me and enables me to be more my true self, and it's a human right that we all should 'walk free' as the real us.

I believe that as I grew up, others made me into a manufactured product, they made me into something I wasn't and for the sake of conformity, peace and acceptance I lived a life which wasn't how it was meant to be, I was just plain unhappy living that life. I believe it's something which one cannot merely tell others who are not the same, it's something which is intangible and has to be felt within and although I've tried dozens of times over the years to explain it to people, there never seems to be the right words which convey the truth of the matter, but I do believe that doing what I have and how I present and live has only made me a 'manufactured product' in the eyes of those who cannot or won't try and accept. I won't use the word 'understand' because it's impossible for anyone to even begin to understand it all if they're not made this way. All I ever do these days if someone is genuinely interested is to ask them to accept that I'm telling the truth and that it wasn't a conscious choice that I made, there is a higher force driving me and all I've done is try to right a wrong committed by those who I know had my best interests at heart years ago.

We see gender diversity in all plant and animal life, scientists and the community accept that as a scientific and archaeological fact, but when we apply it to the human animal then it becomes a more touchy, voltile matter.

Kind Regards,

Sally.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:36 pm

Hi Darlene,

You are correct, I entirely missed what you were getting at.

Darlene wrote:

My question is have you considered the possibility that you may have or might yet repress the male side more than might have been necessary?

I have absolutely considered this, and continue to consider this on almost a daily basis. I used to consider the possibilty that I may have been repressing my female side. I determined that indeed I had. I have now made changes in my life to correct this situation, and I am considerably happier.

Sorry about the confusion. I did not intend to miss the point of your post. I took it collectively, as opposed to the actual question.

Love always,
Elizabeth

CJ · Post by CJ » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:39 pm

Hi all,

Wow! There are some amazing replies here!

Sally,

You've articulated thoughts and concepts that are usually very difficult to put into words (and with which I find myself very much in agreement). Thanks. Your eloquence serves us all well.

Kathy,

I find your analogies inspiring (and they have the ring of truth, to me). In a way, we humans are endlessly "re-inventing" ourselves ("creator" or no). From Virginia Wolfe's Orlando to Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man (and beyond), it seems as though we have no compunction to refrain from experimenting with the very stuff we're made of--be it our body or our self-identity. Transgendered folks--crossdressers, transgenderists, transsexuals, and gender rebels of every ilk and persuasion--are no exception, I think. And, no, your examples are not silly; far from it! "The presentation of self in everyday" is an art that admits of no absolutes, only relatives. And this can go from the withholding of a smile to the shaving of one's legs (and, indeed, to the taking of testosterone-blockers); it's all meant to signify--both to others and to ourselves--what, and who, we think we are as well as how we want others to relate to us as human beings.

Cathy,

As usual, your take on things is thought-provoking. I find myself mulling over the possibilities, bemused. Thanks for your contributions, as well, to Darlene's intriguing thread.

Darlene,

Thanks for clarifying. It's always gratifying to get a clearer understanding of where a person is coming from. I can finally go, "Ah! So that's where Darlene's been trying to go with this all this time!" And what you say, Darlene, makes a lot of sense; I think there's not one person here that isn't trying to reach some sense of balance in their lives. I guess I'm just still a little bit puzzled as to the nature of the yardstick by which you define "balance." I think I understand what you mean (but do correct me if I'm wrong); when you say that, by abandoning the drive for some (illusory) perfection, we gain the capacity to be content with who we are, as we are, without feeling the need to take things further. Is this close? If so, I guess I still don't understand why it couldn't be possible for someone (say, a person who's more than "just" a crossdresser but "less" than a transsexual) to "take things further" precisely because they're also seeking that contentment. Can you clue me in on this one? I think it's important not to confuse the search for happiness and well-being with a quest for perfection. Every which way I read you, I cannot help but feel that your view is based on such a confusion. That we take steps to more fully be who we feel ourselves to be (often from a very, very young age) by doing things to (and with) our bodies doesn't necessarily mean that we're aiming for some far-off goal that, in the end, only stands to run against our deepest sense of self. In other words, I think there is such a thing as "The Varieties Of Transgender Experience" (with apologies to William James). As you, yourself, said, Darlene, your own experience is one variety; mine is another; Beauty's is yet another, and so on and so forth. I just cringe a little when folks don't realize they're painting the world strictly with the pigments and oils found on their own palette. (Yes, yes, I know; we all more or less do this... it's in the nature of the beast).

By the way, Darlene (and I'll admit that this is merely the result of my own experience), it seems impossible to me to properly gauge what kind of help or support a person needs or wants (if any) if we don't give a hoot where that person is on his or her life's journey. Where we are on the journey will often determine the nature of the tools we've managed to equip ourselves with in order to cope with the difficulties we encounter. For instance, someone who's "just starting out" may need a bit more "handholding" than someone who's mastered whole sets of coping skills and strategies on the road to becoming who they are and who they can be. It's a simple matter of caring about people's potential to "self-actualize." We all have that potential. It's one that's worth fostering. We can only do so once we gain a sense of where this or that person is in that process.

Anyway, I've rambled yet again. But, see, Darlene? This is good! Your thread is intriguing. It made me think; it stirred up stuff. I'm always glad for this and I'm thankful you actively sought out our opinons on the subject. Thanks!

Love,
CJ

Crossdressers-Haven.com