Thanks for this, Monica.

One of my bf's college friends is trans; he knew her before she transitioned, lost contact with her, and then found each other online 20 years later after she transitioned and he came out.

She's married and never told her husband about her past. I guess she thinks he'll never find out otherwise, and maybe she's right.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing your feelings with us!

I agree that disclosure is usually the way to go, but I wish you wouldn't denigrate those who have found other strategies as "flush[ing] logic down the toilet," wraught with loneliness, or otherwise just not thinking straight.

In the circumstances you describe, sure disclosing makes sense as a personal safety strategy, but you're applying your conclusion to all circumstances -- trans people of all genders, dating folks of all sexual orientations.

What about those of us who date bi/queer/pan folks? I sincerely doubt there's any chance of a violent reaction of "Oh no, I can't believe you're 'really' the gender of my last partner!" Or what about if you're hanging out in a community where trans-positivity is one of the norms, do you still have to announce your trans status before dancing? I mean, in the circles I hang out in, folks would be more likely to be upset to discover you shop at walmart and eat at mcdonalds, but no one is saying it's the obvious logical choice to disclose your shopping habits before holding hands.

Also, I'm a bit concerned you may be selling men short -- as well as our ability to judge them. Sure, plenty of men are violent, even more of them could be violent and it might be hard to tell. But I believe it's possible to know someone well enough that you can be certain they won't kill you. I know plenty of anti-oppression men in my life. I don't know how they'd react to dating a trans person, but I do know it wouldn't be violent.

And of course, let's not forget who's ultimately responsible for anti-trans violence. Men are capable of not commiting rape when they see a woman in a short skirt, just like cis folks are capable of not murdering partners they discover are trans. Having options to protect myself from cis violence is good, but unlike seatbelts, I don't think we need a police force handing out tickets to those who don't use this option in particular.

Well, now I'm really confused. This must be a confusing issue for a trans person who is in it.
I'm looking at the article and reading the responses and I think this has made it more cloudy to me.

Wait, Monica's trans? Why didn't someone tell me?

Seriously though, I find myself agreeing with Monica on this one. I think it's something that should be "told" - not as a sin or a disease, but as part of a person's history and experiences. I'd never go into a relationship that I'd kept full of secrets (or one big one) just because I'd not feel that level of honesty and trust I'd want for a relationship.

I realized there is a part of this that I left out of the article that needs to be included. It has to do with "self esteem." Society has devalued trans people so much that many have a low self esteem, even after they get all of their surgeries. Having someone who loves them helps to boost that self esteem, so they will do whatever it takes to keep that person around, even not telling.

I guess the reason I see a problem with this is that I don't have a low self esteem. I like who I am and who I have become. Sure, there are improvements that would help, but my life does not stop because I cannot afford those improvements.

I think a lot about how nice it would be to have another person in my life who loves me. I've had several so far. But, I will not go against my integrity to keep that person around. If I have a new love, it will be a person who wants me as I am and not who they think I am. I guess I'll always be considered a rather odd person in the trans community for this and other reasons. Hey, that's my lot in life.

If there's a chance of a long-term relationship, I tell all.

If there isn't, I don't. But I do broach the subject in general terms. The type of guy I'm attracted to is geeky enough to be interested in Intersex conditions. Along with firefighting, firearms, military history, astronomy....

You make so much about trust in this piece, Monica, but I can't stop wondering about what it is that you're encouraging us to trust him with--as you seem only to be talking about M to F spectrum, not F to M spectrum, and only in "straight" relationships.

I put straight in quotes because there seems to be no differentiation in your piece between pre and post op transsexual women, no differentiation between full time crossdressers and part time crossdressers--transgender women.

Is it your argument that we are all the same, and all face the same practical danger?

First, I disagree that we all face the same practical danger--because we are all, of course, very different. At least, my analysis--grounded in reality--sees this; I do not impose some kind of ideological intention, however laudable, for unity and sameness, on the diversity that are transgender and transsexual women.

More than that, addressing your emphasis on trust, what is the deep dark secret that we must share to make the relationship work?

If one starts from the assumption that we are holding something so shaming, such an abomination that we will die from holding it so close, then, well, maybe we should find the right man to share it with us, because we're not able to do so on our own.

But I don't believe this is a deep dark shaming secret.

You speak of self-esteem. I cannot avoid the conclusion that your urging us to share doesn't really go with what I certainly hope is your belief that we have nothing to be ashamed of!

If there is the assumption that, say, post op transsexual women are not what we seem, that we are deceiving men, then, by all means, urge us to share this secret of deception.

I agree with Zoe and concur with Tobi.

Maybe your analysis of deception applies to crossdressers, though I cannot speak for them.

It doesn't apply to those who have proudly gained their selves in the face of those who call us deceivers

Any hard and fast rule will, ultimately, kill people.

Discovery arguments are often based on a failure to understand certain cultural issues that have in interplay in such things as well as situations that are outside the experience and understanding of those who promote outright discovery.

Disclosure, to date, has been what has resulted in the deaths of the majority of those killed by someone they had involvement with.

People who will do such things will do such things regardless of when they find out -- regardless of the timing of discovery.

So any hard and fast rule of this nature will, in the end, cause the death of people.

Trust is something that is personal and variable. I can trust one person explicitly in one area, and not trust them at all in anything else.

Trust is not absolute for everyone -- so as a hard and fast rule to be applied to everyone, it fails, logically.

Absolutism is the refuge of fear.

I, for one, spend a lot of effort towards not being afraid.

I will advocate, now and always, for telling strictly on one's own personal terms, and that anyone telling someone different is wrong.

Even you, Monica.

Lastly, this is the speech of victims.

Don't dress that way, don't go over there, don't play with that one. They might hurt you.

It is, inherently, an indirect blaming of the victim of brutality.

All too often, it is based on propaganda of 1 in 12. Propaganda based on a number that is orders of magnitude off of the reality. By that model, the total number of MtF transsexuals is less than 26,000. And we know that just the top ten surgeons in the last fifteen years alone have done more surgeries than that.

Meaning that it does not include any non-operative people -- the one's most affected by this propaganda.

That I won't do, nor allow to be done, without speaking up.

When to tell? When you want to do so. That may be upfront, that may be after sex, that may be never.

Anything else is a restriction on freedom -- the most important of civil rights.

I just had a wonderful conversation with Tobi on the phone and it seems her and I are closer in believing the same thing then we originally thought. I hope she writes an article on the same subject.

I realized, with Tobi's help, that I needed to phrase things in a clearer fashion to be better understood. I was talking about the extreme situations and not all situations. I'll have to be more careful next time. Please accept my apology.

Thanks Monica for bringing up this issue.

Before becoming "sexually active" as it were, I advocated universal disclosure early on. Now I think it depends too much on circumstances.

For example, in the context of being post-op, consider being proactive, seizing the initiative.

A really good way of getting to know a guy is during pillow-talk. After you've screwed each other senseless a few times, you have a pretty good idea of what his reaction would be. Bodily intimacy leads to sharing confidences. You tell each other secrets.

Then it's up to you. Break off, and never disclose. Or reveal all, as he's revealed all to you. Remember, this is after you've really and repeatedly pleased him sexually, as only a woman can do (if he's straight). Brutally, you've used sex as a weapon, as women have done to dangerous men since time immemorial.

Not just oral - though that has its place - but REPEATED episodes of vaginal sex, so his instincts and subconscious can't see you as male in any way. He can still be homophobic, but you get classed as "girl" not boy, not just intellectually, but emotionally, viscerally.

This requires keeping those pelvic muscles in good shape, and doing your kegels. It helps to be multiply orgasmic, with a classically, even cliched female sexual response.

Monica, I'm as straight-laced as they come. Staid. Prim. Prissy. Prudish. But although this is traditional, the behaviour of every courtesan, kept woman and mistress, it's been proven to work very effectively. Before feminism, it's all we had. It's still all the oppressed women in the middle east and elsewhere have to make their effective slavery bearable.

Of course, if you find "Mr Right"... then in addition to giving him your body, you can give him your heart.

I'm not looking: I want to practice on a few Mr Wrong's first. Those who are just in it out of lust. For one thing, I'm married, to a woman I love very deeply. It's just that both of us are straight.

I'll get to your questions later, d, but not necessarily here.

Right now, I want to approach this from a whole different angel, since trying to keep oneself safe in certain situation doesn't seem to be that big of a concern to some of you.

In a basic, most common, romantic/sexual relationship, there are (for the most part) two people involved. I'm sure that is something all of us can agree with. And, I have heard for all my life that good relationships are the ones where you are equal partners.

I see here, by some of the comments, that the feelings of the man in some of these relationships are of no concern of yours. Have any of you even give a thought that it just might be nice to let the man make the decision on whether he wants to be with a woman of trans history or not? I get the feeling that as long as some of you get your sexual jollies and whatever else from this man, that his concerns and his feeling on the matter of your past falls in the category of "So what?"

I guess it gives me the basis of my next article, "Why some trans people are selfish and self centered."

In this thread Tobi, Zoe and dyssonance have amassed ideas and made arguments on behalf of transsexual women, women of transsexual experience. My own contribution has been to also raise the question of what do we have to be ashamed of.

The question you continue to be raising seems to be that we really aren't what we say we are, that, somehow, we are deceivers and, in your next article, Why some trans people are selfish and self centered you will point out why.

It is almost as if you are taking the part of the poor man in this argument, that, somehow, we are more powerful than he is.

Please address the arguments and ideas raised here. Or not.

Editors' Note: This comment has been deleted for Terms of Service violation. You can see our commenting policy at the bottom of each thread.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

I love how these elitist transgender types have opinions on conditions they were not born with. But for what its worth, here's another transgender woman who agrees with Monica.

http://jasperswardrobe.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/passing-and-stealth-are-bad-for-us/

This lovely transgender woman even goes after the intersex claiming she can own that identity too, just because.

I'm so glad we have non-transsexual "transwomen" like Monica and Jasper to tell us how to live, and who we really are.

My goodness, what a train wreck this thread has become.

I'm not going to take sides as to when a person should reveal intimate details about her life. I see merit in many sides that people have argued and I'm just not certain what the answer is.

However, I am rather distressed at the level of invective surrounding the post-op vs. non-op/pre-op and dating men vs. lesbian divide. In spite of all the different lines of division we might draw between each other, society hates us for pretty much the same reason: we violate the common understanding of what female and male means. Of course, I don't agree with that narrow understanding and many folks on this thread probably don't either. Nevertheless, common folk tend to feel otherwise. So, regardless of our surgical status, our genitals, or who we choose to date, a whole lot of people hate us. As far as I'm concerned, that's the bottom line. I don't care what kind of genitals another trans/transsexual woman has. We're in this together and given that we *all* have been attached to penises at some point in our lives, I have a hard time excluding Monica from the fold simply because of her genital status.

I'm sure y'all have heard of divide and conquer. Right now, looking at this comment thread, it seems like we're doing the hater's work for them. Who needs enemies and bigots when we can tear each other apart with no need of outside assistance?

In the spirit of addressing these unfortunate behaviors, here are a few things to keep in mind:
1) If the world sees you a woman, it doesn't matter what shape your genitals are. We are subject to the threat of male violence just as any other woman is. If the man in question discovers that we are also in possession of a penis, there's a good chance he's going to be even more pissed with us. It seems to me that non-op/pre-op women have even more at stake in this conversation than the rest of us.
2) How many lesbians started out dating men? I'll give you a hint: more than you can shake a stick at.
3) How many guys insist on pursuing a woman even after she tells him she's a lesbian? Here's another hint: your arm is going to get tired of shaking that stick.
4) Sexual orientation can be quite fluid. Those folks who ID as lesbian today might find that they ID as bi or straight many years down the road. Folks go in the opposite direction, too.
5) I've know a few lesbians who wound up with guys as life partners. Some of them are still predominantly attracted to women, but something about that one guy made their hearts melt. Should we exclude lesbian identified women with male life partners from a conversation about male violence and dating? Or do we include them?
6) What about those women who would have surgery if they had the money, but are just too poor to afford it? Essentially, they get disqualified from speaking on this topic because they're poor. Given the world's nasty history of giving people of color the economic shaft, this means that a lot of trans/transsexual women of color are excluded from this conversation via poverty as well. Classism and racism have a habit of exposing a flawed basis of exclusion as the ugly prejudice it truly is.

The moral of the story? Life is wacky and can't be shoved into nice, tidy little categories. Consequently, we have much more in common with each other than we might realize. Plus, in spite of our best lesbian intentions, many of us could wind up dating men. It's probably a good idea for all of us to think about the reality that surrounds dating a man and being a trans/transsexual woman. It's better to consider the ramifications beforehand, rather than having to make a spit-second decision when you meet that one guy who melts your heart. Last but certainly not least, when we insist on drawing lines of exclusion, we sometimes access (and possibly abuse) more sources of personal power and privilege than we might want to admit.

Now then, can we stop beating each other up with the surgery/sexual orientation stick? When to share one's life experiences as a trans person is certainly an important topic to discuss and it's a darned shame that it's being derailed by sectarian infighting. Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together. It's counterproductive to ignore that reality.

Just for the sake of full disclosure: I'm a white post-op trans woman who is bi, leaning heavily toward lesbian. I lost my virginity to a guy while post-op, but I'll probably never date a guy again. Then again, life is simply too long to make that prediction with 100% certainty. So, am I qualified to speak? Honestly, since I don't fit neatly into folk's boxes, I really don't care.

I just have to repeat for clarity: This "article" on Bilerico is a thinly-veiled hitpiece on every woman who has ever transitioned. It is the standard stock in trade of the "non op" transgender to attack our legitimacy and deny our womanhood, as if they have the right and the power to tell us who we are. I have seen this over and over again in "trans" circles. It is nothing more than woman-hating abuse, and it apparently has the blessing of the GLBT.

"Transgender" is about using "cissexual" privilege to attack those of us who were differently-born.

http://ariablue.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/transgender-is-cissexual/

I'm still shaking my head on how my removed comment in any fashion violated the TOS of this blog.

Helms is an avowed non/perm-pre op. Helms has zero experience living as a post corrected woman. These are well established facts that Helms writes about constantly.

Every single post corrected woman has been in the physical reality space Helms is. Helms has never been in the place we are post corrected. This again is self evident. Self evident as well should be that Helms thinks it appropriate to dictate "proper" behaviour to an entire class Helms has never been or had even a second's experience as and the comments by Helms using generalized insults towards post corrected and other women here who disagree with Helms' opinions demonstrate this clearly.

Helm's position clearly depends on a viewpoint that post corrected women are not "real" women. That Bil understands this should also be clear given the number of comment discussions on this very point so it's also clear Bil takes this position as well since he allows endless guest blog from individuals from this viewpoint without balance. Personally I find that position insulting and bigoted in the extreme.

Only in the topsy turvy world of transgender can the opinions of someone with 1/2 the experience be routinely given weight over those who have been through the entire process but there you have it. Since it is those who fully identify as "real" women who's opinions are discounted routinely, one must conclude this is gynophobia and mysogynoy, no other conclusion is even possible.

"Woman" is a social construct based on a human being's gender expression that appears on the feminine side of the scale.

"Female" is a biological term based on the internal and external attributes that have been scientifically established over centuries.

All transsexual women are indeed women, so the rumors to what I believe are totally wrong. MtF crossdressers are also considered women when they present that way.

However, all, but a few transsexuals and all MtF crossdressers are NOT female. That is an undeniable truth. Do you have pelvic bone with a birth channel? It is okay to say you are a "woman," but don't try to convince people you are "female."

Really Monica? The fount of wisdom continues to gush forth I see. Do please continue to tell everyone who they are. I'm sure the favor will be returned shortly.

I am female, and I am a woman. Monica has no such authority to make silly statements. What does she know about "biology" anyway? Talk about an essentialist!

Holding those views is why I say that they, the hardcore militant transgenders, are cissexual. Their bodies and their brains match up, that's why they don't make physical alterations. That's their own definition. Transgender = cissexual.

But crossdressers are women when they dress up??? This keeps getting funnier. Do you expect people to actually believe that?

You are in good company though, here is someone that agrees with you:

http://jasperswardrobe.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/i-am-an-authentic-woman/

Hey Monica, do you think that people are just their reproductive systems or lack thereof, really? Is that who everyone "really" is? Wow, that pretty much explains the transgender to anyone who still doesn't get it.

You know what else that females have that you don't, Monica? I'll give you three guesses.