Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Trangender'.
Found 2 results
-
Hi All What a 5 months it has been for me after finally deciding to confront my (at the time crossdressing needs) after almost 60 years of denial, guilt and shame. Little did I know at the time that, as I write this, I would be on the path to transitioning and living full time as a woman. My initial thoughts just after Christmas 2017 was to admit and accept that I liked to dress as a woman and that need would be satisfied on a part time basis and in private. I would come out to my family and depending on their reaction would be allowed to do this with their consent or continue in private or (the painful part) go our seperate ways. As I finally accepted (mid Jan 2018) the need to dress became more urgent and I had become quite obsessive about it to the extent I could think of nothing else. This was confusing and created an enormous amount of conflict. After one final round of guilt, shame and a complete purge of all of my feminine attire and an absolute determination to end this aspect of my life, I thought I was free of it, My resolve lasted less than 24 hours. It was at this stage I decided to seek counselling. I made an appointment for mid Feb 2018 to see a specialist in transgender issues. While I waited for the appointment day to arrive I immersed my self in research into all things crossdressing and transgender, I read all I could so I could try to understand what I was. I also began to rebuild my feminine wardrobe and vowed I would never purge, feel guilty or shame again. About 1 week before my appointment I was driving to the local shops and had a nagging thought racing around my head. As I parked at the shopping centre I found myself just sitting in my car with this thought determined to be heard and voiced. For about 10 minutes I could not bring myself to say a few simple words until they finally broke free. "I am A Woman" I almost shouted them and quickly looked around to make sure no one heard me, and then the dam broke sobbing tears for about 5 minutes before I could pull myself back together. It was the voicing of this sentence "I am A Woman" that my life and where I was heading all made sense. My thoughts cleared, the internal conflict was erased and I found myself at peace with myself. By the time I got to see the specialist, the following Saturday, it was not about my problems but an open and frank discussion about being a transgender woman and what my journey would look like from that point forward. Since then I have come out to my family and friends (mid Feb 2018) and all have been supportive, including my wife ( although we have decided to seperate but will remain friends). As the days and weeks have passed doubts have pressed forward, this can't be right, how can I be a woman, I am 60 years old, get a grip, be a man, stop this nonsense etc etc. As the weeks have turned into months the doubts have been largely silenced and not only have I accepted that I am A Woman but acceptance has turned to joy and pride as I now know who I am and was meant to be, and my feminine wardrobe has expanded rapidly. This week on May 15th I visited my Doctor and we have begun the process of me becoming a woman, blood tests have been done and an appointment made to see a Psychiatrist for a formal evaluation, ( my Dr said this is a formality in my case) before I start female hormone therapy. There no doubt will be many hurdles to jump and tears along the way as well, and I hope, many good moments but I feel mentally stronger and more self assured that I will be able to overcome anything thrown in my way. Thank you if you have read this far. It is sights and communities like Tgguide.com that remind me I am not alone on this journey and there are many like minded souls out there. Finally I can live my life as my authentic and true self Lots of big hugs and kisses Elsa
- 5 comments
-
- 3
-
-
- hormone therapy
- transition
- (and 1 more)
-
The myth of Activist Judges As somebody who gets 100% of their entertainment from online sources, I also get 100% of my news from online sources. One source of news I use is Yahoo.com, which features some of the most diverse and progressive articles written on a mainstream web news source. The comments section of these news articles, however, seems to be made up of some of the most staunch neo-conservative and fundamentalist christian people on the internet outside of forums dedicated to those political/religious affiliations. While homosexual marriage seems limited to homosexual rights, Transgendered people are caught in the crossfire because many states that have denied marriage to homosexuals have also denied marriage to transgenders and transsexuals. Within the last week, a Judge in Florida issued a ruling that essentially annulled the anti-homosexual marriage law passed in Florida sometime in 2008. This judge issued his ruling with the statement, "The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the clerk to issue licenses to other applicants, but as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the clerk to issue such licenses." This judge is essentially saying it is not the injunction that is requiring the state to issue gay marriage licenses, it is the US Constitution that places this requirement on the states, and that the injunction is just an order by the courts to the state of Florida to follow the Constitution's provisions. The article written for Yahoo! News can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-allows-gay-marriages-begin-across-florida-225319224.html If one is to scroll down to the comments section, the tone towards homosexuals flips a switch. Here is a small selection of comments from that section: "This is just plain wrong and I’m confident is sharing that none of us Christians like this federal judge making decision for us Christians down here in the south." "One of the biggest moral mistakes in human history is to have same gender individuals believe they can marry. Genesis 2: 24 Same gender unions lack the tools to have or demonstrate proper relations.........." "Does the 14th amendment cover father son marriage? See how the liberals havent covered all their lies. Never was gay so called marriage ever thought a right denied. And just as the 14th amendment DOESNT cover father son marriage, NEITHER does it over gay so called marriage. " These fundamentalist christian comments are common in the Yahoo! news comments section. However, when it comes to articles written when a federal judge issues an injunction within a state to respect the constitutionally guaranteed right to equal marriage rights, there is one comment that pops up every time: "The people voted and spoke, and did so very wisely. Then another activist judge, with no understanding of The Law or our US Constitution comes along to be a spotlight whore." These types of comments are common on homosexual marriage injunction articles, and not just on Yahoo! News articles, but all over the internet. Lets take a moment to examine the claim that judges that place injunctions on states to respect homosexual marriages, and by extension transgendered marriages, are activist judges. First we must dissect the term Activist Judge. While such a term has yet to be defined in a denotative way, it is obvious Activist Judge implies that an activist judge is using his/her power as a judge to push his/her own political or social agenda. There are, obviously, many problems with this label. The first problem is that this name calling ignores the Supreme Court's decision on homosexual marriage, in specific its ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act (Love that name by the way; it implies that homosexuals are some how attacking marriage by wanting to get married). If you happen to be out of the loop on that, SCOTUS ruled 5 to 4 (divided across party lines, obviously) that the Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional law. Those who call federal judges who place injunctions on states Activist Judges are ignoring the Precedent system the courts use. In america, all federal courts are actually assistant courts to the Supreme Court (see the origins of lower courts during America's early history), which means that any rulings the Supreme Court makes are precedents for the affiliated lower federal courts. If you are unfamiliar with precedents, precedents are simply a system in which lower courts are expected to maintain consistency with higher courts by taking previous rulings as preceding rulings to the challenge at hand. If, for example, the Supreme Court rules that laws limiting speed limits to 50mph are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court is also implying that its lower courts hold that ruling as a precedent to further challenges to speed limit laws. This would mean any time a lower federal court receives a challenge to speed limit laws after that ruling, they are expected to respect the Supreme Court ruling as a preceding ruling and must rule in favor of the precedent or push the challenge up to the Supreme Court. In the situation of homosexual marriage, SCOTUS' decision on the Defense of Marriage Act serves as a precedent for challenges to state level homosexual marriage bans, essentially requiring state level judges to rule in favor of homosexual marriage under the precedent of SCOTUS' ruling on DOMA. Even if a judge believes a state ban on homosexual marriage is somehow constitutional, their hands are tied by the precedent of SCOTUS' ruling on DOMA. A federal state judge must rule in favor of homosexual marriage. So far, the best thing a federal judge has been able to do for anti-homosexual marriage proponents addressing challenges to their state-level bans on homosexual marriage was to push the challenge to the Supreme Court to get a direct ruling on whether or not states are required to follow the ruling on DOMA as a generic ruling on homosexual marriage bans. However, as a side note, since SCOTUS has refused to revoke marriage licenses that homosexuals have as they move from a state that allows homosexual marriage to one that does not, it is my personal opinion that when that challenge hits SCOTUS they will quickly rule that states must respect the constitutionally guaranteed right to equal marriage rights. In addition to ignoring the precedent system, the assertion that judges that rule in favor of homosexual marriage are activist judges is a misnomer. While I recognize there may be specific, rare incidents of judges ruling outside the law to serve their own political agenda, this is not the case on homosexual marriage rulings. In this case, a precedent is in place which implies the right to homosexual marriage is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The point is ALL judges are activist judges; all judges are attempting to push a singular political opinion: The Constitution is the highest law in the land. All judges are activist judges pushing for the constitution, and that is not only their job, it is what the constitution says is SCOTUS' only purpose, and by extension the only purpose of its lower courts. -By Taylor Cogdill Amare atque Pace, Semper.
-
- 1
-
-
- marriage equality
- homosexual
- (and 4 more)
