Subscribe: Comments On: Control Tower by Mistress Matisse
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
control tower  control  don  female  gender  party  people  posted kungfujew  posted  sex  tower  trans people  trans women  trans  women 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments On: Control Tower by Mistress Matisse

Comments On: Control Tower by Mistress Matisse

Comments On: Control Tower by Mistress Matisse

Published: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 00:00:01 -0700

Last Build Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:15:00 -0700

Copyright: Copyright 2018 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger.

Re: Control Tower

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:08:29 -0800

I am Chimeric (someone who was originally male and female fraternal twins and one absorbed the other, thus I am XX and XY and thus both genders by genetic definition)

I am Bisexual but primarilly attracted to women. I like boys physically but find on a personality level most rub me wrong once relationships and sex come into play.

Currently married to a Female-to-Male trans person. Most amazing person I have ever met.

The best way to include trans people and exclude men faking is pretty simple. There are huge differences between men and trans-women. Hormones do a lot for your body, as do laser or electrolosis.

An overwhelmingly large number of Trans-women are completely disgusted by their penis for one thing, very few want anything to do with it. This is amplified by hormones as well. I was perfectly fine with mine, but hormones have changed that a great deal. It takes a lot more work to get aroused, usually will not stay very hard, and the sensation completely changes. Whereas I was more than fine with mine before, most of the time trying to use it for sex feels really weird for me now.

It is unlikely many Trans-women who go to any of these parties will even want anyone near their dangly bits. Some dude in a dress looking to put it everywhere is a dead giveaway.

Next is body shape and tissue growth. Hormones tend to feminize the body a great deal. Soften skin, hourglass the waist, and breast growth. Most trans-girls I know who are on hormones will have at least an A-cup or B-cup with 6 months to a year.

There is also personality and manner of dress to concider. Big difference between some guy looking for an IN versus someone who lives their life in society as a woman.

I dunno if this is an American thing. I have never had any trouble meeting and hooking up with Lesbians here in Canada.
Posted by PatriciaCross

Re: Control Tower

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:15:20 -0800

Doot - you do know that "tranny" is as offensive a term for trans people as any epithet you can think of for any other marginalized group, right? And even if a trans person you know says it's ok, you still shouldn't apply it to other people without their permission. That is, unless you like to hurt people deliberately.
Posted by abc

Re: Control Tower

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:59:21 -0800

Forgot the link:…
Posted by Bluejay Banana

Re: Control Tower

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:56:57 -0800

An "interesting" response:…
Posted by Bluejay Banana

Re: Control Tower

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:54:30 -0800

There was an interesting situation in Vancouver, Canada a few years ago where a M2F transgendered female was told she couldn't counsel women on the rape crisis line because that job was for women who were born as women only (but she was welcome to volunteer in another capacity.

Tranny sued the volunteer-run rape-relief shelter successfully for $10 000 for "hurt feelings (overturned on appeal).

That caused a two-years long shit-storm in X-tra West (gay newspaper) over who was right, the two camps basically being:

1) It is illegal to discriminate based on gender
2) On the backs of raped women is a really shitty place to do your therapy.

It was an interesting debate.

Posted by Doot

Re: Control Tower

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:06:59 -0800

Oh right, Fetlife! How could Matisse ignore such a font of useful and TOTALLY factual information. Fetlife! Ri-ight.

Posted by Diva

Re: Control Tower

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:13:26 -0800

If you look online (particularly FetLife conversations about the Bang-assuming they haven't been changed), Midori DID in fact use the F on ID standard when they first advertised. Although I appreciate the peaceful acknowledgement of an issue that has been historically transphobic, REWRITING history is not an appropriate peace treaty. Midori was wrong, she realized that, then changed her mind.

And it's not just about chosing whether or not to legally change your gender, it's about ACCESS to that bureacracy. Not only does it take a lot of time and energy, but you have to be able to afford all the changes that could have an effet on your job, school and so many institutions afraid of identity theft.

Thank you for educating the masses about the term cisgender. I don't thank you for attempting to cover up Midori's initial ignorance/exercise of privilege for the sake of advertising. I am a cisgender woman who won't be supporting the Bang this year because of all the disrespect to trans women and men (allowing men and thereby threatening a women-only space while disregarding their maleness). I hope next year we can start on a better foot.
Posted by iL Nocturnal

Re: Control Tower

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:19:46 -0800

CISGENDER?????????? WTF?!?!?!!?!

yada yada yada yada, a womans only party mean woman only. Vay-Jays...only. Post-op transexuals can go, the rest can't. anyone else butthurt about it, throw your own party!!!!

I can get a boob job and then claim I'm a transgender lesbian and be knee high in pussy... what's the problem?
Posted by sapa

Re: Control Tower

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:22:54 -0800

@32. Point conceded. I'm a little wary and defensive anytime I see 'Women Only' or 'womyn-born-women only' in reference to any kind of gathering.

I understand setting limitations for a sex party. On the other hand, I saw that description on the website for a cafe the other day. A *cafe*. In downtown Chicago.
Posted by tara_ianthe

Re: Control Tower

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:11:27 -0800

@33 Aside from all the other more important issues here, many would say throwing a great party is all about the planning. One really wrong individual could derail the mood and atmosphere of the thing for a lot of the would-be participants. (And in case this even needs saying anymore, not all men are wrong, but those that would crash an event clearly not intended for them are.) It's easier to wonder why anyone would go to the trouble to worry about such a thing when it is NOT your event. If it's something into which you've invested a lot of your own time and energy, you're more likely to try to think up some fail-safes. If it's EVER happened or even COULD happen, you don't want it happening at YOUR party.
Posted by Petunia

Re: Control Tower

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:29:57 -0800

"If other people choose to alter their definitions based on an example of how I express myself, I'm not responsible for their decision, they are."

Which "other people" are you talking about? Trans people or non-trans people?

If the former, aren't they actually refusing to alter their definitions? If the latter, didn't they typically already agree with your definition?
Posted by kungfujew

Re: Control Tower

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:11:53 -0800

Matisse has a blog and has followed up on this topic. I'd like to comment on something explained there. Here is an excerpt from an interview of Kate Bornstein.

Kate Bornstein: "You can't say 'women only' or even 'trans women excluded' because then you'd be defining another person's gender for them and expecting them to accept your definition."

No, I would not be defining anything for anyone. I'm not telling anyone what they must think, or how they should define anything. I'm merely using words in the way that I choose to use them. If other people choose to alter their definitions based on an example of how I express myself, I'm not responsible for their decision, they are.

Posted by Casey99

Re: Control Tower

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:49:29 -0800

@27 I do actually get what you mean, and would be equally annoyed by dumbassery. I guess my somewhat pragmatist approach is based on the likelihood of an occurrence rather than the wrongness of it. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I am literally not sure I've ever experienced or heard of other scene folks having to deal with a straight man trying to pretend to be trans to get into a party where he isn't wanted. Not saying it couldn't happen, or hasn't happened, or won't ever happen. Just that the odds of it happening seem low enough to make it more trouble to worry about and try and craft rules to prevent than simply having him handily removed if and when he materializes.
Posted by AnathemaT

Re: Control Tower

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:24:34 -0800


Come on now. These ladies are not starting an all-dyke community complete with its own schools, stores, fire department, etc. OK, maybe a few of them would like to do this, but really, the rest of them just want to have a bio-dyke-only sex party. That's it. Just a sex party.

Calling them "dyke separatists" for this is like calling guys who have a guy-only poker game "male separatists."

Calling them "bitches" for this is plain petty. Some of them probably are bitches, just like some guys who play in guy-only poker games are bitches, but don't let a couple of bitches in the mix poison you against the rest; who simply want to get all sexed up with a specific type of person(s).

Posted by kungfujew

Re: Control Tower

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:22:33 -0800

If you're trans, why would you want to go to a dyke-separatist shindig anyway? Those ladies are bitches.
Posted by tara_ianthe

Re: Control Tower

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:52:08 -0800

This is reason #86 why political correctness makes me puke.

A simple solution is what I call the "ie" maneuver. You use a term, and then "'ie' it" into a more specific definition.

For example, "women only, ie.......".

At that point, by what basis are some exclusions "ok" while others are not? I think either you invite everyone or you exclude on whatever reasons you like. There are no intelligible "good vs bad" exclusions.
Posted by Casey99

Re: Control Tower

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:07:47 -0800

The difference is: how you feel shows in what you do.

If you really *don't* identify as a woman and at least live that way every day (even if you don't have surgery and change your ID) then you are going to be there thinking *and acting* as a man. They DON'T want that. They say so very clearly.

It is deeply disturbing to me that some people think it's okay to cross women's clearly stated and completely reasonable boundaries - as long as you don't get caught. It's not the getting caught part that makes it morally wrong. It's the doing of it.

Besides: he wouldn't be able to do it. He would act like a man, it would be very obvious, he would get caught, he would raise a fuss, he would ruin the event and upset people - all just because he couldn't stand the idea that him and his dick couldn't go somewhere he wanted to go. Entitlement mentality much?

Just let the women have their damn party!

Posted by Lida rose Again

Re: Control Tower

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:26:08 -0800

@27 But what's the diference between a (bio) man who self-identifies as a woman 24/7, and one who does it for one evening so that he can get his rocks off fantasizing about all the sex he's seen?

If said frat boy can convincingly pull this off, the difference, at least as experienced by the women attending, is zero.

Thus, either female-ness is verified by visual inspection or similar intrusive nonsense, or it's going to be an all-nude party, or participants will just have to deal with the fact that some attendees may or may not be as female as they purport to be.

As long as they don't disrupt the event itself, I don't see that as a problem.
Posted by Smurf

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:40:22 -0800

@26 It's not a matter of whether or not he's "inappropriate". He's a man. It's a women-only party. They don't want him there, period. The harm-done is the part where a man decides he doesn't have to respect these women saying "No, we don't want you here."
Posted by LidaRose

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:29:47 -0800

It has generally been my experience that if people are inappropriate or creepy at play parties, DMs will educate and/or remove them quite efficiently. Even at a pansexual party, if a guy (or gal for that matter) is gawking, harassing, etc., he or she will be removed. So this hetero guy in a dress goes to an all-female play party, is super polite and acts convincingly female enough that no doorperson or DM throws him out. I have a hard time imagining the frat-boy jackass who could pull that off and, if he could, well, what harm has he actually done? I do think as a community we sometimes spend a lot of time worrying about "what ifs" that in real life would sort themselves out pretty easily.
Posted by AnathemaT

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:42:09 -0800

It's not hypocritical for a group that has been excluded from certain things to sometimes exclude others so they can have their own thing for a bit.

This isn't like lesbians trying to deny voting rights to trans people; it's just a sex party.
Posted by kungfujew

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:17:29 -0800

Thank You for again broadening my horizons regarding the world I currently find myself in.
I will strive to make good use of the information and, not be mean as much as possible
(until someone asks for it in just the right way).

Exclamation Marc
Posted by Nuclear Marc

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:51:01 -0800

Cisgendered? You have got to be kidding me. I am fully supportive of raising awareness of gender/sexuality/etc. issues, but I fucking hate a false cognate. Transgendered people aren't called "trans" because they identify as the "opposite" gender as the one they were born as, but because they have traversed the space between male and female and come out somewhere on the other side of wherever they started. They have TRANS-itioned. If you go back to the Latin, then yes, "trans" means across, and that's where both the chemistry and the general-use terms have come from, but to throw "cis" in there is artificial and incorrect. I am not cis-gendered, I am just non-transgendered, because the gender I was born as fits fine with how I want to be perceived, so I've stuck with it.

Furthermore, I would think that the LGBTQXYZ community more than most would try to stay away from such black and white terms as cis and trans. Cis means on the same side. Trans means on the opposite side. If there's anything we should have learned over the 30 years or so that this topic has been out in the open, it's that things are rarely, if ever, that straightforward when it comes to gender and sexuality.

We're not in HERstory land here, but it's still pretty bad.
Posted by TheLando

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:28:05 -0800


Isn't this really just a good reason to come up with a third or fourth gender pronoun?

Also, aren't there plenty of trans people born with typical sex chromosomes?
Posted by kungfujew

Re: Control Tower

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:23:50 -0800

@ 7:

Haven't you ever seen the Tom Hanks TV show Bosom Buddies?
Posted by kungfujew