Shemale Transexual

This thread was on topic only in that it still discussed transsexuals. I split off that discussion and left it intact. If you want to continue discussing, debating, arguing, reinventing language or smacking people upside the head (you can invent a new term for that too), please see http://www.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=91511 .

In this thread, please stick to the original topic: I would enjoy having sex with a shemale or a transexual or both. I don't feel comfortable sucking another mans cock but would have no issue with the other 2. I want them bang my ass. It's terrible when you watch trannies in porn you think you can just go find one. We can even do the anal erotica. i would want it to last awhile.

Anything not on that topic, I will delete, remove, erase, wipe out, obliterate, unless some moderator beats me to it.

Yes! I would greatly enjoy a suck-n-fuck fest with a lovely lady who has a hot throbbing dick between her smooth shaply legs.

Never had, but I've always wanted to have sex with a pre-op transgender woman (as a top and bottom). I find them very hot if she is feminine and a complete woman (except the genitals).

Being screwed by a woman who has a real dick just drives me crazy....

I am not attracted to men, but I am attracted to a hard penis! I am not Bi sexual, but could very easily be!

I find hot transsexuals a huge turn on. I would love to meet one and spend the night with her.

I find hot transsexuals a huge turn on. I would love to meet one and spend the night with her.

Except it's really a HIM.

HE may have breasts, but more important, HE has a penis and male DNA.

Unless it is a her being a him...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12051984/Woman-tricked-into-having-sex-with-transexual-tells-how-she-was-manipulated.html

Except it's really a HIM.

HE may have breasts, but more important, HE has a penis and male DNA.

However, language is a social construct and it can and does change according to different prevailing social customs and attitudes.

You'd perhaps be correct when talking about a transsexual in a strictly scientific or biological sense. However, in our present day and age, in an everyday social context, politeness and courtesy dictates that gender identity linked pronouns are the preferred usage in everyday circumstances. If a person identifies in outward appearance as a female then female pronouns are the correct etiquette.

Confusing? Hmmm ... not really. No more so than learning the correct words to use for matters concerning race and ethnicity. Those change as well. Consider the new usage an adaption to new present day realities, which generations before us did not encounter. And thus new social requirements produce new language usage.

It's pretty straightforward, but first you have to accept the fact that languages are always, always in transition and evolving ...

In the early 90's i worked at a tv/ts clothing adult baby store in southern cal have met and been with several tv and ts's ( nothing like having a dress over your head while sucking a cock or having a woman screw you in the ass while you feel her tit's on your back) or having a tv/ts mother you while treating you as a baby (sever back injury in 84 so diapered 24/7 since) sadly the clothing store closed and i moved to northern nevada still a ab/dl and will be diapered rest of life i go as sissybabytimmy

. . . . It's pretty straightforward, but first you have to accept the fact that languages are always, always in transition and evolving ...

Languages may change which is a fault of uneducated people but reality doesn't.

If people don't like what a word means, don't bastardize a perfectly good word and ruin its meaning. Create a new word and see if it catches on.

Languages may change which is a fault of uneducated people but reality doesn't..

Languages - all languages - always change and evolve, because the people speaking them, constantly refine and improve and find new ways of expressing things, especially when expressing new concepts.

Perceptions of reality changes as well. Several centuries ago for instance, a transsexual would have been perceived as some kind of sinful person, if not a demon.

But now, politeness dictates that we use a different pronoun out of consideration.

Besides, languages change - Nature itself changes - because of mutations. Mutations do not come about because of uneducated people. Those mutations that are perpetuated are those that were successful and fulfilled a purpose or a need.

And here's the lovely Anarchistic quality about English. No one gets to say what is correct, except the collective groups of people who use it as their language. When a certain usage comes to be accepted by a sizable number of people, it becomes correct English.

An interesting sexual related example of a word changing meaning is 'gay'. Around 1900 it meant someone of loose morals in a sexual context (besides the more everyday meaning of being happy). When i was young in the 50s and 60s it had still not generally acquired the meaning of homosexual, but it do so a decade or so later.

And yet this shift was not caused by uneducated people misusing a word. Using gay was probably something of a mix of appropriating a term as pride in being different and as more polite form of referring to a sexual orientation than the other words currently in use then, judgmental words like 'faggot', 'fruit', 'queer' and so on.

This is a good example of a word changing meaning out of social politeness, not by mistakes or out of ignorance.

OK, point by point:

Languages - all languages - always change and evolve, because the people speaking them, constantly refine and improve and find new ways of expressing things, especially when expressing new concepts.

Definitions change and evolve because of ignorance. Example: the word peruse. It ALWAYS used to mean "to read carefully." IGNORANCE on the part of the people has been changing the definition to mean "to skim quickly" because they used the word without knowing what it means. Lack of education causes a language NOT to "evolve" but to degrade. You want a new, better definition for something, create a new word.

===========

Perceptions of reality changes as well.

Perceptions of what is acceptable may change, reality doesn't.

===========

But now, politeness dictates that we use a different pronoun out of consideration.

I'm sick of political correctness and watering down ideas to make others happy.

Bering politically correct only helps prevent offending whining pussies.

===========

And here's the lovely Anarchistic quality about English. No one gets to say what is correct, except the collective groups of people who use it as their language. When a certain usage comes to be accepted by a sizable number of people, it becomes correct English.

That is what is destroying our language. Our language is being altered by the uneducated who don't know any better.

===========

An interesting sexual related example of a word changing meaning is 'gay'. Around 1900 it meant someone of loose morals in a sexual context (besides the more everyday meaning of being happy). When i was young in the 50s and 60s it had still not generally acquired the meaning of homosexual, but it do so a decade or so later.

. . . and before that "gay" just meant "happy." A homosexual is a homosexual is a homosexual. Why can't they just say that instead of changing the meaning of "gay"? I like syllabic economy, but we all know that isn't the reason they use the word "gay" instead of "homosexual." A rose by any other name, etc. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals. I have a homosexual first cousin, a brother/sister pair of second cousins who live as man and wife and people might call me bisexual and/or under Satan's control. I don't care.

===========

And yet this shift was not caused by uneducated people misusing a word. Using gay was probably something of a mix of appropriating a term as pride in being different and as more polite form of referring to a sexual orientation than the other words currently in use then, judgmental words like 'faggot', 'fruit', 'queer' and so on.

This is a good example of a word changing meaning out of social politeness, not by mistakes or out of ignorance.

Again, I don't stoop to political correctness. Being politically correct is just being mendacious. I love that word. It means so much more than lying, being disingenuous or deceitful.

I can call myself a black Chinese woman, and "demand" you refer to me as such, but it still doesn't change what I am.

I can dress like a woman and try to assume a woman's role in public, but it still won't change what I am; it will only change your perceptions of me.

Susie-- you make a strong argument for your point of view, but it is contrary to the way that language works. Agracier has it right. You can argue with him all that you want, but you will not prevail.

For examples of changes in word meaning and usage, look at entries in the Oxford English Dictionary and see how things have changed from Shakespeare's day, much less Chaucer's. Or, consider why it is necessary for Webster to have issued three different editions of his dictionary over the years.

hankb

I have been with a few t gurls all of which were good looking some top and bottom. The very first one must have fucked me for a half and hours and it was the first time I ever came hands free. I knew then that when I was old and retired I could think back on that and have a nice smile. One of them was thai and a complete knock out she only had a 2 inch cock, raisins for balls but i could not stop sucking her, i don;t know what it was but i was sold. We played one a week for almost a year. Shaved smooth 5'6 her i will miss as she went back to thailand for family. I do believe to make the experience better the first time is always memorable and having passion for each other makes the experience even better. Since then it has been hit or miss...

Susie-- you make a strong argument for your point of view, but it is contrary to the way that language works. Agracier has it right. You can argue with him all that you want, but you will not prevail.

I know that. The frailties and weaknesses of our species makes it impossible. The lowest common denominator/more poorly educated people for better or worse, usually worse, unfortunately control the evolution of language

If we were a better animal I would prevail, but as it is, too many of us suck.

Here we go again. Susie uses gender pronouns based on genitals, not gender. I have read that headline before.

Anyway...

Susie- While you are right to point out that language can be affected by ignorance, that is not always the case. Of course people are ignorant about the word "peruse" if they use it to mean "skim" rather than "read closely."

But language is merely an attempt to represent reality. The "frailties and weaknesses of our species," as well as ignorance, dictate that language will always be flawed and used in a flawed manner- even when it is grammatically correct.

You say that any evolved version of language is inferior to the original version. But whatever you identify as proper English, that language evolved into that system from other languages and other versions of language over the course of the entire history of mankind in a certain part of the world. That language was not contrived all at once, and it has never been perfect because human beings have never had a perfect understanding of reality. As you say, perception does not equal reality. I am sure that you can agree that those people were ignorant and wrong about a lot of things, even when they used impeccable grammar to express their false beliefs.

We cannot be expected to refer to things exactly as they did, now that we know their perception was not always reality.

As time goes on, our understanding of reality will inevitably improve. In order for language to remain an accurate representation of our understanding of reality, language has to change.

In this particular situation, the perception used to be that sex dictated gender. Anyone born with a penis was thought to be a man, in terms of gender. Anyone born with a vagina was thought to be a woman, in terms of gender (and no one knew how to handle people with intersex conditions). In your case, that is still your perception. But if sex dictates gender, then whence cometh transgender people? If you believe they are delusional about their gender, you are claiming that you know them better than they know themselves. Yet you have not met the majority of transgender people. Your thinking reflects your own preconceived notions, or at least the preconceived notions that you have inherited from whatever subjective version of an education that you have. There are all kinds of educations and areas of study. Your comments in this discussion suggest that you are apparently as uneducated as anyone when it comes to gender studies, which leaves you quite out of your element regarding this topic- unless you want to learn something from those of us with the patience to present it to you.

If you value education so much, why don't you get educated about this subject?

Whether you, Susie, refer to someone as a "he" or a "she" is based on whether they had a male or female formation of flesh and blood between their legs at birth. You have made that clear. Nowadays, the correct usage of language is for us to refer to someone as a "he" or a "she" based on their gender. That may not always reflect the "reality" of their sex at birth, but it does reflect the reality of their gender. When identifying a person, we have to prioritize the more relevant aspects of their identity. Gender is more relevant than the shape of a person's genitals. That is why the use of "he" or "she" is based on gender, rather than genitals.

I know that. The frailties and weaknesses of our species makes it impossible. The lower common denominator/more poorly educated people for better or worse, usually worse, unfortunately control the evolution of language.

English contains around 25% words taken from Latin and Greek roots and about as many from French roots (with many overlapping). Most of these words refer to scientific and academic areas of knowledge and many of the words with French roots come from usage by the higher and monied classes in society in previous centuries.

Clearly a quarter of all words makes an important impact on how a language is structured and used. But not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination can anyone say that this aspect of English was brought about by people of a common denominator or poorly educated people. It is just the opposite. The more educated had an important role in restructuring how English was spoken and used.

If a language changes and evolves, it is not because of frailties or weaknesses of the people using it, but because of the need to adapt and change along with new discoveries in all areas of human endeavor. New knowledge, be it scientifically empiric or of a social nature needs new words or a different usage of words in order to be more correctly expressed and passed on.

Language always changes. Even in my own lifespan I can see it happening. When Hal Roach made the 'Our Gang' comedies, Alfalfa was always 'making love' to Darla. You can hear the same in Abbott and Costello routines from the 40s. Clearly a different usage from the now accepted meaning of the term. When Tommies sang how 'everyone was gay' (in London) as they went marching off in 1914, they sure weren't implying all Londoners were homosexuals.

Shakespeare is credited with inventing or changing the use of some 1700 words in English. Forsooth, dear damsel, I hope you don't consider him a member of the common undereducated masses. He did so by ignoring accepted usage or turning meanings around or fabricating new words. By being a bit of a linguistic anarchist actually ...

Definitions change and evolve because of ignorance. Example: the word peruse. It ALWAYS used to mean "to read carefully." IGNORANCE on the part of the people has been changing the definition to mean "to skim quickly" because they used the word without knowing what it means.

And yet now, by common acceptance and common usage, it does indeed mean 'to skim over lightly'.

A few centuries ago 'to trip (the light fantastik toe)' meant to dance. Now to trip means to fall (all over yourself), even metaphorically. This is one of my favorite changes in usage. So comical. There was even a hit song by Billy Murray and Eileen Stanley in the 1920s about this.

You're just illustrating my point. Despite what some people would like, things change, socially as for instance in the way a large number of people now regard gender, and therefore logically also in the way this new way of looking at gender needs to be expressed in language.

I'm sick of political correctness and watering down ideas to make others happy. Bering politically correct only helps prevent offending whining pussies..

I've always talked about being 'polite' or courteous. I never used the term 'political correctness' which has a different meaning altogether. Looks like you may be confusing words and meanings just because two both start with the same root: 'polit' ...

I'd probably never use the term 'political correctness', it's an unsavory term, since it implies a dissatisfaction with more politer forms of language.

...this new way of looking at gender needs to be expressed in language.

I would add that "this new way of looking at gender" is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the way gender has always been throughout the history of human beings. There have always been transgender people, but transgender people have been marginalized and discriminated against by the societies that developed our language. There are other societies whose languages were never trans-exclusive and in many cases, transgender people were even treated equally. Our society needs to be more like that, but it's getting there.

If political correctness helps, that is fine by me. People need to learn that they are not superior to anyone else on a superficial basis. The acceptance of derogatory language can lead to all sorts of atrocities. Throughout history, and even today, we see what happens when certain people are regarded as less than human. Obviously, we need to use language responsibly if we are to evolve toward a world where every human being is treated as such.

Nowadays, the correct usage of language is for us to refer to someone as a "he" or a "she" based on their gender. That may not always reflect the "reality" of their sex at birth, but it does reflect the reality of their gender. When identifying a person, we have to prioritize the more relevant aspects of their identity. Gender is more relevant than the shape of a person's genitals. That is why the use of "he" or "she" is based on gender, rather than genitals.

I disagree.

Today, the "popular" or "casual" use of language is for us to refer to someone as a "he" or a "she" based on their self-described gender "identity". Whether or not that "identity" is "correct" is open to debate. Whether or not that reflects the "'reality' of their sex at birth" depends on the person so described. IMO, the the "'reality' of their sex at birth" IS defined by their genitals and the underlying DNA that created those genitals.

That person may choose to take on a social/cultural ROLE of one of the opposite gender, but that does NOT redefine their actual gender as defined by hir DNA. Surgery may reshape the outside of the body, and artificial/supplemental hormones may aid in physical and mental reshaping, but the underlying ACTUAL gender, as defined by DNA, does NOT change. A person born as a man will never be able to give birth. A person born as a woman will never be able to impregnate another woman.

What does "I feel like a girl, not a boy" really mean? Again, IMO, it simply means a person prefers to assume the CULTURAL ROLE of a specific gender. If we did not have such distinct roles defined, I suspect the transgender "movement" would not be so pronounced.

Again IMO, the reluctance of many/most "transgender" people to undergo "routine" surgery such as mastectomy, hysterectomy, or castration - which are well short of penis/vagina reconstruction - speaks volumes about their real "gender identity", as opposed to their desire to take on culturally-defined gender roles. The most public example is Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. He has the means and espouses the public desire to be a woman. However, he does not take the most final PHYSICAL steps to assert that desire...

^^^^^ Thank you!

and Bruce (as Caitlyn) Jenner says he wants to have sex with women, not men. That makes him either a gay woman or still a man who has breasts.

He wants it both ways. What a hypocrite.

He wants it both ways. What a hypocrite.

Just about everybody in the world wants to have their cake and eat it too ... that is human nature ... ha ha ha

Just about everybody in the world wants to have their cake and eat it too ... that is human nature ... ha ha ha

That may be true, but he and for some reason, his followers don't want him criticized for that.

Most people are more discrete in being a hypocrite because they don't let all their hypocritical desires be known to the world.

By the way, I would rather have my STEAK and eat it too!.

but the underlying ACTUAL gender, as defined by DNA, does NOT change.

That may be correct. But, I am reasonably sure there has never a person who is able to define a person's DNA simply by looking at them. As you know, DNA typing is only a relatively new technique, something developed in my own lifetime even. So, in a social context, DNA has little or no relevance.

What people can do however with their own set of Mark I eyeballs, is to read the way a person outwardly defines their gender role socially. Meaning that, if someone dresses as a female and does their best to look like one, no one is diminished in any way by addressing them with their preferred pronoun. It harms no one, does not upset the Natural Order of Things and is a simple way of paying someone a compliment or acknowledging their right to identify as they wish to. And I'll say it again, it is courteous and polite and promotes social harmony and good will.

Now, there was a time when doing just that - assuming an opposite gender role - was considered an affront to God and a heresy - that is legalistically what got poor Jehanne d'Arc condemned to death: for being a relapsed cross-dresser. Imagine then being a transsexual ...

You can paint up a person to look like what ever you want, but under the paint and prosthetics, they still are what they are.

I could cut my hair short, bind my breasts, put a sock in my pants, use the men's room, and get a macho job running a steam roller, but I'd still be a woman hiding her tits looking like a man.

When they took middle aged Mary Martin and made her up to look like 10 year old Peter Pan, she's still middle aged Mary Martin looking like 10 year old Peter Pan.

What we need are new pronouns. Hetrans and shetrans would work because the traditional he and she are incorrect. They could be defined however the populace likes--as long as they don't bastardize the original he, she, his and hers.

For example, in general usage, hetrans [or something similar] went to work at 8 AM and after working a full day came home to histrans family. This is just as valid as the traditional HE or SHE went to work at 8AM. . . .

Sorry...I'm STRAIGHT, and that (for me) means NO sex with males, even if they've been altered surgically & hormonally to mimic a woman! I'm not putting those "women"; if that's their thing, more power to'em, but that doesn't mean I have to have sex with them to be accepting of their choises.

When I was in the navy back in the mid 60's when you were in Subic Bay there were "ladyboy's" in a lot of the clubs...Some of them were beautiful...All seemed to use enemas to clean there bowels before going to the club....I found several of them who actually had an enema fetish and would exchange enemas with you along with anal sex....Also when you did your R&R in Bangkok the Boi's were everywhere....Again they were beautiful and until you got one undressed and felt "her" erect cock you'd have thought they were girls...

Again they were beautiful and until you got one undressed and felt "her" erect cock you'd have thought they were girls...

Where I live, is a very huge harbor, there have always been areas where prostitution was allowed and tolerated and in fact not illegal. That mean all kinds of working girls plied the trade, some of them not true DNA girls, but indistinguishable until completely undressed.

It was an oft told story of how unsuspecting customers would be taken in by one the dressed up boys, especially if the customers were drunk, and then get a big surprise. I heard these stories ever since going to university where the more adventurous types went in for nights out in the red light districts.

And later, when older and a friend of ours became a 'juge d'instruction' in our city - a sort of prosecutor - she told me that it was one of her not so infrequent tasks to investigate claims by irate customers who had been 'fooled' by female looking male prostitutes. That usually entailed going to the place where the complaint took place and interviewing the persons concerned. Her sympathies were seldom with those registering the complaints, which were usually dismissed anyway. They did make for fun stories and anecdotes at dinners and gatherings though ...