gdp's Comments

Sandra M. Lopes : Por uma «ética crossdresser»...

Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:20:30 +0000

É isso mesmo, Susaninha, e o que se pode fazer entretanto é justamente saír, estar em público, mostrarmo-nos... mas sem despertar o ódio, o nojo, a desconfiança. E sim, tens de aparecer nalguns dos nossos encontros e eventos para pormos a conversa em dia :)

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:27:50 +0000

That's interesting, and also very flattering, because I value much more a 'mind' relationship than a 'body' relationship, if that makes sense to you. That's also the reason why I've been married for 17 years — our relationship is essentially based on a mutual mind attraction. We both have next-to-zero libido anyway, and neither of us considers themselves attractive, either.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:26:08 +0000

Riiiiiiiiight.... My lips are sealed on that point :-)

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:25:48 +0000

Haha yes, Adrienne, that reminds me a conversation with my good friend @Erin Swallows, she also hopes that some day she'll be able to push the right button to make me 'change', but that is not going to happen — ever. Not in this life for sure :) As for the rest of your comment, I think you have evaluated yourself perfectly. The interest/desire was always there, it was just being actively suppressed; once you stopped your denial, it naturally surfaced as being part of your mindset. I'm actually very happy for you for not 'suppressing' yourself so much!

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:22:23 +0000

Well, sex happens in the mind of animals as well — that's pretty well established in some cases, and little reason to believe it's different for other species, just because we are not able to study all species in the same way. As for the rest of the comment, yes, the 'urge' is mostly in the mind, not in the body — but of course both are closely knit. Unfortunately, as you said, the body will not always comply with our urges. Currently I'm on anti-depressants and I still feel the urge to masturbate, for example, but it simply doesn't 'work' any more. In a sense, that's actually scary: thinking that simple medicine can rewire the brain and stop some things from happening against our wishes... On the other hand, it's great to know that we can artificially rewire the brain, or else we wouldn't be able to cure most mental diseases!

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:17:07 +0000

Hehe yes, I have to agree with you, and there is actually a fine dividing line between eroticism and pornography. For me, eroticism stimulates the mind (you imagine what could happen and derive some pleasure from that) while pornography just stimulates the senses (you watch what happens and derive pleasure from it). But of course, ultimately, it's all in your mind...

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:15:14 +0000

There is still time to pick up Buddhist training :) It's not restricted to any age, although I'd think that it makes more sense if you're older than 15 :-) Just make sure you get a qualified teacher. That's usually simple enough to do: you should just ask them directly, 'who was your teacher and why did he allow you to teach?' A qualified teacher will have absolutely no problem in answering that truthfully, and allow you to check up on them by giving their own teacher's name (and contact). Unfortunately, a large number of so-called 'Buddhist teachers' out there are anything but qualified. This is nothing new, of course, there have been teachings for at least a thousand years or more to tell students how to figure out if someone claiming to me a teacher is a fraud or not. Besides that, all you really need to pick is the nearest Buddhist centre and ask for some classes :) Note that traditionally teachers will never ask for payment for their teachings; however, it's supposed that students requesting teachings learn to practice generosity :) Also, in order to be effective, the training requires a daily practice — at least 20-30 minutes every day, without fail. But you will start with possibly 3-5 minutes at the very beginning and gradually increase the time of practice. It's not really hard to do — much easier to learn than, say, riding a bicycle! — but it requires some diligence.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:08:39 +0000

Oh yes, same here, we're hypocritical as well... The Japanese are not 'perfect' though, they are also a very conservative society. The difference is perhaps that they have culturally a different relationship with sex than we Westerners do.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:05:18 +0000

English is easy to learn, but sooooo hard to master... hehe Still, it's one of those cases where all you need to improve is to practice it a lot :)

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 22:04:12 +0000

All right, I will agree with you on that point. I also tend to evaluate intelligence based on how people write. Often I get that wrong when meeting them in person; sometimes they simple aren't good at writing but nevertheless very intelligent...

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:44:06 +0000

Hahaha no, no way — that would be utterly impossible, in my case :) You flatter me, but it's simply not true...

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:42:22 +0000

Hehe I think that we could, indeed, continue to argue forever... beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, but, on the other flip side of the coin, there are a few objective measurements regarding beauty. Here is an academic article on the subject: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/428250/

Sandra M. Lopes : Vanity Moment

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:24:34 +0000

Aw thanks, Erin. And ultimately I have to agree with you — you were right after all! Pity that it was just a fleeting moment :)

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:23:03 +0000

Well, I think she (I'm assuming it's a 'she') felt deeply offended by my words, and, once that happens, it's almost impossible to turn her mind around. It's very hard for someone who was offended to think rationally about it.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:03:45 +0000

Well, I have learned something with @noonereally — that it's dangerous to use words with multiple meanings in different contexts, and that often the context I'm using is not the one that people think it is...

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:37:00 +0000

If you shrug away anything I write as 'mansplaining', you're not even willing to engage in meaningful discussion. I disagree that in order to be a 'lesbian' you need to suffer discrimination in public. From your words, it sounds like you are only a lesbian if you have been discriminated. If you're female and lead a normal sex life with a partner of the same gender, then you're not really 'lesbian' but something else. Fortunately, I have a few lesbian friends who would disagree with that overly pessimistic view of lesbianism. In any case, let's drop the whole subject. I've edited the article and removed the expression 'lesbian MtF crossdresser' which you find so offensive. I'm not here to offend anyone, and the whole article doesn't revolve around that sentence anyway. I just might point out that the distinction you make between 'crossdressing' and 'transexuality' is not correct. If by 'crossdressing' you mean 'fetishist crossdressing', then I will agree with you; that's something very different from transexuality. On the other side of the coin, not all crossdressers are fetishists, and there is not a single, universal reason for people to crossdress. It might never have crossed your mind that some people just crossdress because there is nothing else they're allowed to do to express their gender identity. There is a certain arrogance among some transexuals (again, I'm not generalising; the ones I know are absolutely not like that!) who believe that just because they are allowed to go to transition they are somehow 'special' or 'superior', and look down upon others who are not doing the same. In some communities such people can actually be very 'pushy' and demand that all members go through transition, no matter if that's the best for them. I believe that this is what you're referring to: that some transexual women look upon anyone who did not go through transition as somehow not being 'worthy'. But that's not how it works in reality. There is a vast spectrum in gender dysphoria; and there are several different ways to deal with it clinically. In extreme cases, transition is the only solution. In many others there are alternatives. People can still express their gender without going through transition: they crossdress, for instance. Sometimes they crossdress 24h/7, sometimes they're not allowed to do so — that depends on the cultural background and personal situation. It's wrong to say that someone is not 'allowed' to express themselves just because they don't follow the 'rules'. In your case the rule is 'if you're not living 24/7 as a woman, you're not a woman'. I'm assuming the reverse is also true: 'if you're not living 24/7 as a man, you're not a man'. So what do you call someone who lives part-time as a man and part-time as a woman? You wrote: 'Which, by your own admition, you do not do'. It's clear you have not been reading anything I write... And as for the rest of your insults, I wonder why you bother to comment at all. Somehow it seems that you derive actual pleasure from the insulting. Well, I have absolutely nothing against any sort of fetishism, so long as it's done between consenting adults, but I'm sorry to disappoint you, verbal abuse is not the kind of thing that arouses me. On the other hand, I definitely welcome constructive criticism.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:51:03 +0000

First of all, thank you for commenting on this article! In order to promote some public debate in this issue, it's nice to have some dissenting opinions, coming from people with different environments and cultural backgrounds. You use the word 'lesbian' as meaning something like a cultural movement — therefore your use of the expression 'it's not just a word'. That might be, in itself, a question of different cultural backgrounds; maybe your own background interprets 'lesbian' as being much more than a word. I'm sorry to say that I share a different background; I employ the word according to my own background, and, to clarify, in my context that word just means 'someone who identifies with the female gender and prefers female sexual partners'. I'm not going to discuss what interpretation of the word is 'better', because that would be as silly as saying that one 'culture' is 'better' than the other, just because they're different. When reading and commenting on the Internet, which has a worldwide audience (and writers, too), you should not assume that someone else's culture is exactly the same as yours, but rather appreciate the difference. I would be fine if you said, 'with my background and culture, I find your use of the word 'lesbian' in this context offensive', and all I could do is to apologise. Instead, I should refer you to the academic, scientific definition of the word, which, although obviously not perfect (all contexts are questionable), it's the one I use, since it has a more precise definition, one which is more neutral and more politically correct. On the other hand, I hope you can understand that I cannot take all possible cultural backgrounds in account when writing my articles; that doesn't mean that I don't care about them, but just that I'm ignorant about them. So just assume that I have a male body, a female gender identity (and try to express that gender identity as much as possible), and a preference for female sexual partners. If you have a better word to describe that combination, please feel free to use it, and let me know what it is, so that on future articles I might use it instead. I wear women's clothes as a manifestation of my self-identity as a female (a gender expression consistent with my gender identity); not for fetishist purposes. Again, we have to take cultural backgrounds in account. People who end their transition from male to female, in my country, are not 'trans women'; that would actually be highly offensive to them. They are just women. They're not transexual; by legal and medical definition, in my country, you're only transexual while you are under transition. To be entitled to transition, you need to go through a thorough medical examination, by two separate teams of doctors, to diagnose gender identity disorder (we still use that name in legal documents, since our laws predate the 2012 APA recommendation of using 'gender dysphoria' as a replacement for 'gender identity disorder'). Before you have that diagnosis, there is no real 'name' to classify that person; also, if you fail the diagnosis (i.e. the medical evaluation considers that the gender dysphoria is not too extreme to warrant transition, but may be psychologically treated in a different manner), there is no technical name/label for what you are. I jokingly refer those kinds of people as 'failed transexuals' in the sense that they might have similar conditions as transexuals, but 'failed' to achieve a diagnosis of gender dysphoria (therefore, it would be a different in degree, not in kind). However, that term has no equivalent scientific/medical term, but is just something I came up with. As said, people with mild gender dysphoria can be treated differently than others where gender dysphoria warrants transition. So if you wish you could call me a MtF gender dysphoric person with a preference for females as sexual partners. That's a mouthful, but possibly a more precise description than the one I used, and one that hopefully is not so offensive to you and people with the same cultural background as you. If you really had read my posts, you would have noticed that recently I've been very focused on explaining the differences between fetishism and gender identity, because they are the biggest source of confusion, and possibly also the major reason why non-fetishist crossdressers, at least in my country, are so careful about 'coming out' — they often fear to be confused with fetishists. The problem is that the notion that crossdressing is just a form of fetishism is widespread. So widespread, in fact, that some transgender support groups refuse to talk to non-fetishist crossdressers, since they believe they're merely fetishists. But, in fact, according to a study (probably one of the very few made in my country; more are being done, but that takes time to publish), possibly only 10% of all crossdressers are non-fetishists. Some might get a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but most will not; they just view crossdressing as a form of gender expression. So, again, we have here another split in the classifications. Among those who are not fetishists, some of them might have mild gender dysphoria (not enough to warrant transition, therefore they're technically not 'transexual'). Others, however, will have no gender dysphoria whatsoever (they identify with their assigned gender as birth) but nevertheless manifest their gender expression as females for whatever reason (which, however, is not fetishist in nature). The best explanation for those cases is 'because we admire women so much and wish to make a tribute to femininity'; other cases are stress relief, for instance, or excitement (in the sense of adrenaline and serotonin release, but not necessarily sexual arousal — it's quite different); there are a few more examples, but those are, in my experience, the most common cases I've come across. Also, I'm surprised that you think that my perception of gender expression and identity are 'the same' as fetishes. I wonder what websites you've been reading; certainly not mine. I follow the definitions established by groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (it's as good as an example as any other; the APA tends to be more long-winded, the HRC's definitions are terse, concise, and precisely to the point). On the other hand, I grant you that I'm not an academic researcher in the field, nor a doctor, nor a licensed psychologist; as such, no, I haven't evaluated hundreds or thousands of people by conducting interviews with them and asking them what they feel, using the scientific method. In no place I have ever claimed that. Instead, I rely upon scientific studies and books published by researchers on the field, who have done a very thorough job to identify and clarify models of gender, and the first thing that you notice if you read enough on the subject is that researchers (like on any other field of science) do never agree precisely with each other, Nevertheless, they can fortunately form a consensus around a lot of points, even though every now and then some theories are rejected and others reveal a novel approach. I tend to side with the more universal consensus unless new evidence shows that a 'new approach' defines a better model of gender. And, of course, I complement my knowledge by conducting conversations with my hundreds of transgendered friends — some of which are merely fetishists, some are transexuals under transition, most are non-fetishist crossdressers — and that gives me the 'practical knowledge' you claim to be 'nil'. Obviously I get most of the scientific research papers from the Internet — not only about transgenderism, of course, but also on my actual field of research, which has nothing to do with gender issues — so I hardly understand what your point is about 'reading up some stuff on the Internet'. These days, practically all scientific research is published on the Internet, in one form or the other; even most scientific books can be acquired as eBooks. While there might certainly be documentation — articles, reports, published papers, conferences, books — that never becomes digital, but remains stored in bookshelves on libraries, and, therefore, I have not come across it, I don't understand your point against the Internet. I know few areas of scientific research in 2015 which do not rely on the Internet as a source of published material; even if it's not the main source for some areas, it's most certainly one of the major ones. Maybe you're more familiar with an area that relies much more about traditional models of research in public libraries and therefore you have a prejudice against researchers who mostly use the Internet. Because I'm not conducting rigorous scientific analysis — as I have already stated before — my perception is necessarily parochial. I compare what the scientific studies say about the subject and evaluate them by observing my friends. What I write about is this correlation between established scientific facts and what my own personal experience is. But — and this point is crucial — my understanding is necessarily limited to the relatively small group of friends I have. As such, I cannot claim that my own ideas and perception are universal, because my sample of test subjects is not necessarily representative of the universe of transgendered people, but limited to a comparatively small group. Worse than that, this analysis is not double-blind, and, because I'm transgendered as well, my observations are necessarily filtered through my own biases and perceptions. That's why I'm not publishing academic research on this subject, but instead merely opinions and thoughts about my own observations. What you are saying is the other extreme: that my own sample group (my friends) is totally outside the universe of transgendered people, and, as a result, my own observations are all wrong. I would say that this is a bold claim, which would require hard facts to substantiate. Put in other words: what you're saying is that my observations of a relatively small group of people (around a hundred or so, perhaps a little more) don't 'fit' at all in the vast universe of millions of transgendered people. I would have to disagree, but not merely based on an emotional judgement. Rather, by comparing findings of published academic articles on the subject, as well as some reference books, what I see is that the majority of my sample group (my friends) actually conform rather well to the samples used by real researchers. In other words, while I cannot ever claim that my own sample is statistically significant (because of my own biased perception), I can at least draw correlations between my own sample and the samples used by true academic specialists in the area. And what I can say is that they are significantly correlated to each other, that is, my own friends behave and express themselves in a way which is quite similar to what real academics have found out. So I would dispute your claim that my sample is not representative of the whole universe (at least it has some correlation to it) and that my conclusions based on the analysis of that sample are completely wrong, to the point of saying that they are 'disinforming'. They are, at worst, 'incomplete' — but they're certainly not 'incorrect'. They might not be valid across the whole universe of transgendered people, but it seems that they apply to a sufficient large number of them, since the correlation is so strong. One sentence of your comment actually caught my attention: 'Your perception of gender expression/identity isn't as linked to who people really are, as it is with what you think they should be, in order to fit your model of gender'. This is actually true for everyone, since all we have is perceptions. People are not 'really something' but instead they create their own perceptions of what they are; that's universally true for everything and everybody, not just gender identity. And people will obviously add their own perception on what others are. This is universal. People are not born with an inner marker that labels them 'I'm a person of type A or B or C' and behave accordingly. Instead, they form their own perceptions on what type they are. Based on their behaviour, they get labeled by others as type A, B or C, because you can't read their minds (and their minds are also not tied to a 'marker' which says what type they belong to). So my conclusions are always based on the following: if someone behaves according to 'type A' (arbitrarily defined, of course), then I label them as being 'type A'. This is a strictly behaviourist approach, because it's all that an external observer can do. What you're actually saying is that I'm probably mislabeling people and consider that 'disinforming'. This is naturally a valid criticism. In that case, I would very much love to hear what your own classifications are, how you identify the traits that make up each classification, so that I can validate them according to my own sample of subjects, and see if your own classifications suit them better. I'm quite willing to be skeptical about my own 'types' and adopt different ones, so far as they describe reality better — in my case, I agree that it's a 'distorted' reality, since it's limited to the comparatively small group of people I'm acquainted with, but it's still worth to analyse how much better those classifications of yours fit them. Also, of course, I would require some further scientific evidence on why your classifications are 'better' than the ones I borrow from my own reviews of academic literature. I will gladly assume that I did not read everything that has been published; and I already admitted that scientific researchers often disagree with each other, and use different (even contradictory) definitions and classifications. However, you judge me harshly when saying that I have just 'learned a bit on the subject'. While most definitely I'm not an expert in the field, and I haven't ever claimed that, in the past two decades I have most definitely covered a vast amount of the literature on the whole subject (that means reading hundreds of articles and a few books — not to mention what members of the community write about themselves) and even saw two or three paradigm shifts that occurred in those two decades (typical examples of 'wrong' concepts are the debunking of Blanchard's theories, or the widespread — but wrong! — view that transexuality implies heterosexuality after transition is complete). I'm also aware that a lot of work still needs to be done; for instance, my current interest is to see published scientific material on the issue of 'crossdreaming', which is a term coined by Jack Nolay in 2007, and there still haven't been any studies published specifically under that label (but maybe some researchers have already published something, just under a different classification; I just missed them because of that). Just because I actually read quite a lot about the subject, that doesn't mean that I'm not open to read much more about it. In fact I'm quite willing to read much more. If you are willing to share some pointers to published research that sustains your point of view and contradicts mine, I'm very interested in reading about it! Nevertheless, I would also like to point out that I don't quite understand what your point of view is; it's not clear from your short paragraph what exactly you're defending as your own model of gender that is so different from the one I've borrowed from the scientific studies I've read. Your paragraph just enumerates some strawmen arguments ('It seems you think fetishes, gender expression and identity are quite the same' — something which I not only never claimed, but actively oppose!) and ad hominem attacks ('It seems you do little but read up some stuff on the internet'), as well as generalization fallacies ('Your practical knowledge of people and their identities is nil.' — while of course my practical knowledge is restricted to some people and their identities, it is not 'nil', just 'limited'; but I never claimed — nobody can claim that — to have practical knowledge of all people, which is what your statement implies).

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:44:31 +0000

Why guilt? I put those videos up in the hope that some people enjoy them :) Smoking fetishists definitely do; after all, what we like is the act of smoking by itself, the rest (the actor) is secondary. And I love your comments, as well as the opportunity you give me to reply to them :)

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:43:10 +0000

Aw you're most kind, thank you. I actually wasn't thinking about your own words when writing that sentence, but of a few close friends who secretly hope that, one day, I will 'become' bisexual (or at least bi-curious) and be able to satisfy them sexually. These friends of mine are very patient, they have been waiting for years (in one case, for a decade!). However, it's unlikely that this will ever be the case. It's like being transgendered and crossdressing: you can't 'get rid of it' because it's part of what you are.

Sandra M. Lopes : Fetishist? Yes, I'm also one... but...

Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:39:43 +0000

It's always the mind, Adrienne. We keep forgetting that. Sex happens in the mind, not in the body; the body is just a convenient tool for those who haven't realized it yet. If you have the yearning or urge for sex, you'll have it all your life, no matter if your body is willing or not: it's part of you. I have certainly heard many people over 80 and 90 who still precisely the same urges with the same intensity as they felt when they were 15 or 16; they are just incredibly frustrated that their body is unwilling to comply with their urges. Of course there is a link to the hormonal levels (there always is!), but, as you said, hormones don't really 'run the show'. Your mind does. And I'm pretty sure that having a partner or not will make no difference; you'll always feel like that :) So... enjoy it :) After all, it's the most natural feeling in the world hehe