The Washington Blade takes a look at what's happened (or, rather, not happened) to the LBGT movement's two prime legislative goals: a federal hate crimes bill covering sexual orientation, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), passed by the House last fall with enough GOP support to compensate for those defecting Democrats who voted to defeat the measure (because it only covered gays and lesbians and not the transgendered).
On the hate crimes bill:
Once congressional source familiar with the hate crimes bill said a number of GOP lawmakers believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not want to bring the hate crimes bill to a vote because doing so would help the re-election chances of moderate Republican senators who support the bill. Among them are Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who face strong election challenges by Democrats in November.
And on ENDA:
[The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force] has called on Congress not to pass a gay-only version of the bill at any time, saying a trans-inclusive version would be the only outcome acceptable for the group and its members. . . .
Veteran lesbian activist Robin Tyler . . . said she is among a growing number of "progressive" activists who support passing the gay-only version of ENDA this year, with the aim of adding transgender protections when more support can be lined up.
"As for whether it comes up this year, what I'm hearing is just a bunch of excuses," Tyler said. "The Democrats have been tip-toeing over this for decades. Are they saying they can't find a few minutes to schedule a vote on this?"
I guess in the age of the audacity of hope, we should celebrate that the Task Force is making common cause with the religious right to defeat "special rights" that only pertain to homosexuals.
Note: I personally don't favor federalizing hate crimes. As for ENDA, while I have a deep-seated dislike for government intrusiveness into private sector hiring (and promoting, and contracting), the reason I remain neutral and not opposed is that I see it as mostly a symbolic step-certainly less onerous than bureaucrat-administered federal mandates that impose racial, ethnic and gender-based quotas (er, "hiring targets") that expose employers to lawsuits if not met. And I believe its passage could set the stage to actually help end federal discrimination against gays in the military, in immigration, and in recognition of state-sanctioned marriages.
More. The Blade story also reports on an internal memo from the Human Rights Campaign's director of field operations that stated it would be best if ENDA did not come up for a vote until 2009, since chances would be better for moving a trans-inclusive version through Congress next year. However, an HRC spokesman said the field director did not speak for HRC (that is, he was not speaking on the record to HRC's members, at any rate).
42 Comments for “Party Games”
posted by H.G. on
And why would ENDA not lead to a quota scheme, the way all other workplace non-discrimiantion laws have (once interpreted by the courts)?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Gay is not transgender. I’m tired of my rights being limited by people who I believe are, in fact, mentally ill. I don’t believe “transgender” exists, to be honest–and I think those people–and I do mean “those people,” not me–need to get help accepting themselves. I believe you are born a certain sex, and you need to man up and deal with it.
The gay community likes transgender because is it oh so shocking. I’m gay–I’m not out to shock people, I’m not out to be subversive. I’m out to live a normal life. I’m a man who loves men. I have no questions about my gender or the gender that I’m attracted to. I don’t need to shame myself by behaving in exotic, flamboyant ways to appease the neighborhood bully.
Although I believe everyone deserves to live a life free of hate crimes and violence, beyond that, I honestly don’t care if transgenders get rights or not. I am not in any way connected with them or their cause any more than I am connected with Seventh Day Adventists or the Society for Creative Anachronism or the Gilmore Girls Fan Club. I wish all humans every happiness, but gays and transgenders have nothing to do with each other, so stop trying to link your rights with my rights.
posted by Amicus on
Note: I personally don’t favor federalizing hate crimes
I do, because those swells down in Mississipi and Alabama? They are not going to do it, unless the rest of America tells them to stop lynching …er, beating up on gays, verbally and physically.
posted by Me on
er. that’d be “…ppi” (everyone knows that).
I have a deep-seated dislike for government intrusiveness into private sector hiring
Who will fight institutionalize bias such as might otherwise be sanctioned, if not “the government”, i.e. the Peoples?
Zorro?
posted by Amicus on
Ashpenaz: “I’m tired of my rights being limited by people who I believe are, in fact, mentally ill.”
=====
gulp. Opinions like these make one wish that the alphabet began with “B”…
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not sure what requires me to think that people who claim to be transgender are not, in fact, mentally ill. I think the same of women who participate in polygamy and alien abductees. I see no more proof of transgenderism than I do of MPD or abduction syndrome or codependency. Such people need reality therapy, not surgery.
Oh, wait, I forgot, it’s SO important that you like me. Ooops.
posted by Horst on
Seems like some people (Ashpenaz) don’t seem to have any qualms about casting the first stone.
posted by Avee on
Amicus comments on federalizing hate crime that “those swells down in Mississipi and Alabama? They are not going to do it, unless the rest of America tells them to stop lynching …er, beating up on gays, verbally and physically.”
Supporters of the federal hate crimes bill have been able to produce precious little in the way of evidence that local authorities are not investigating and prosecuting crimes against gays, including those motivated by animus. The federal bill became a big issue after Matther Shepard’s murder — a case that was prosecuted by the state of Colorado and which ended with life sentences for the murderers — without the need to transfer authority to Washington.
posted by BobN on
“gays and transgenders have nothing to do with each other, so stop trying to link your rights with my rights.”
Oddly enough, the bashers who would just as gladly pummel you as pummel someone who was TG don’t have the finely honed sense of discrimination that you do.
posted by Another Steve on
Supporters of the federal hate crimes bill have been able to produce precious little in the way of evidence that local authorities are not investigating and prosecuting crimes against gays…
Now, now avee. Don’t you know that liberal bureaucrats in Washington always know best!
posted by Richard on
For me it is rather simple; if we are going to have civil rights and hate crime laws, then they should include sexual orientation and gender id.
Should we have them? Well, I have first-hand experience with the empty slogans on this subject within the LP. Yes, we should have them.
Hate crime laws can be a trickery issue, depending on how they are worded.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN offers: “Oddly enough, the bashers who would just as gladly pummel you as pummel someone who was TG don’t have the finely honed sense of discrimination that you do.”
I’d agree but that is hardly a reason for the gay rights movement to continue to be weighed down by gender identification politics –btw, my hunch is that the folks who would hazard violence on a gay or TG person are the same ones who hate brownskinned illegals, asians, blacks or people who date others from differing cultures.
It isn’t the adverse reaction to “gay” or “TG” that does it for them… the impulse for violence lives within their context of bigotry.
But I do like your Kum-by-ya moment BobN of gays and TGs holding hands in victimhood solidarity… nawh, I’m not serious on that one.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t see why you think transgenderism is any more real than MPD, recovered memory syndrome, or alien abduction. The fact that someone believes he is a woman in a man’s body doesn’t make it true any more than believing you were abducted by aliens or abused by Satanists makes it true. Why should I work for the rights of those that I think are fundamentally deluded?
posted by Richard on
If we only believed in human rights for people who shared our background and beliefs, we would find human rights to be an empty slogan.
I fail to see how a person being transgender gender equates to them having an opinion about UFO’s.
As for Satanism, perhaps you should try reading the 1st Amendment once in awhile.
I don’t see why you think transgenderism is any more real than MPD, recovered memory syndrome, or alien abduction. The fact that someone believes he is a woman in a man’s body doesn’t make it true any more than believing you were abducted by aliens or abused by Satanists makes it true. Why should I work for the rights of those that I think are fundamentally deluded?
posted by Ashpenaz on
There is no such thing as a woman born in man’s body, or a man born in a woman’s body, there are no alien abductions, there are no multiple personalities, and no one has ever been abused by Satanists. They are all myths. I am no more interested in transgender rights than I am in alien abductee rights. None of these things has anything at all to do with being gay.
Those psychiatrists who offer transgender therapy are just as much quacks as reparative therapists–and just as much respected in the psychological community.
posted by Amicus on
And why would ENDA not lead to a quota scheme, the way all other workplace non-discrimiantion laws have ..
What’s wrong with quotas, exactly, for gays?
Do you not believe that there are enough qualified gays for just about every job out there, well in excess of the proportion of gays in society?
…precious little in the way of evidence that local authorities are not investigating and prosecuting crimes against gays, including those motivated by animus..
If it is all superfluous, then why do they object so very, very loudly?
Hell, Trent “Prince Charming” Lott was one of just a few who voted against money to collect statistics, even, way back when!
posted by Amicus on
Gay is not transgender.
=========
So, when your boyfriend (or girlfriend) flips you over (or not) what “gender” is that, traditionally understood?
When you go dancing with your shirt off on a floor full of hot, sweating men, which of your non-gay friends are comforming to that gender role?
Of course, “gay” is “transgender” in some abstract ways.
More importantly, how do you separate your rights so easily from everyone else’s rights? That is, the two are linked as a political goal. To move ahead, one without the other, is rather like becoming complicit in a schema that is unjust.
posted by Richard on
In many situations, gay people are often culturally seen as violating traditional gender roles.
The fact that you may be a ‘macho’ gay man who drinks beer, watches sports and hates “Will and Grace” does not change the fact that having sex with another man or woman.
This is partly to blame, why gay women tend to be seen as less threatening then gay men, and why lesbianism has often not been illegal.
Gay women — lesbians — are seen as acting like men, by their sex lives, if not their outward gender mannerisms.
Gay men are seen as acting like women…
At the root of homophobia is a tremendous amount of cultural sexism and gender-hysteria.
posted by Pat on
There is no such thing as a woman born in man’s body, or a man born in a woman’s body…
Didn’t the President of Iran say that?
Anyway, Ashpenaz, how do you know that? Since you know that there exist men who are sexually attracted to men instead of women, why is it such a stretch to believe that there are men who identify themselves more as women?
You don’t suggest that gay men “man” up and force themselves to be attracted to women. We all know that “reparative” “therapy” doesn’t work.
If this was 1308, I might agree with you. Since there wasn’t the medical technique for gender reassignment, a transgendered person did not have that option. But today, that option exists for those who really believe they are not the gender they were born into. We don’t tell people who are born with congenital heart ailments, conjoined with another baby, etc., who can have their condition greatly improved by surgery to “man” it up.
I met two transgendered persons (male-to-female) who said they were the happiest in the lives when they became women. I am not saying that the plight of gay persons and transgendered persons are the same. But just as gay persons who played the straight role for part of their adult lives become happiest when they accept themselves as gay, why should we begrudge those who don’t identify with their born gender who want to also become happy?
posted by Richard on
Technically, being transgender is still a mental illness; ‘gender disphoria’ I do believe is the term.
Yet, Congress did exlude it from the ADA of 1990. Some State civil rights laws only deal with GLB and some include the T.
Now, I could talk, at great length, about what is wrong (politically) with most LGBT-interest groups and individuals.
A sex change operation, as it was once called, is a long, expensive and difficult process. It is not something that can be done easily, nor should it, and lots of different health care and legal professionals have to get involved.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
A query: Is it any wonder that the main context of this post has been pushed aside in favor of a discussion about whether TG and gay rights should be linked?
I mean the post was about the patently offensive, blatantly partisan efforts of our “friends” -the Democrat Party leadership- stalling on advancing a gay rights agenda in Congress… instead, tossing the community’s agenda on the slag heap and telling us to wait.
I wonder if the Democrat Party leadership did that to BigLabor or teachers’ unions or blacks, that they’d be willing to “take one for the team” as Democrat leader HarrygReid thinks appropriate?
How long do the gays in the Democrat Party continue to carry water for the Plantation Masters before there’s a slave revolt?
Evidently, a long long time.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Gay is men loving men. I am a man. I love men. There is not some feminine part in me loving the masculine part of someone else, which s what straight people think being gay is. Gay is not covert heterosexuality. Gay is masculinity responding to masculinity.
There is no reputable psychologist who believes that transgenderism exists. Even alien abductees have John Mack–but there is no one who thinks being transgender is a reality. All you have to do to prove someone is a man is check his DNA. Transgenderism will go the way of multiple personality disorder and hypnotically recovered memories–it’s a complete myth which only distorts the search for gay rights.
Oh, of course, transgenderism makes for shocking Pride floats, and subversive Advocate covers, so the gay community will cling to it long after it has been discredited.
posted by Richard on
M&M;
Much of what is said about the Democratic Party is pure speculation, rumor, gossip or innuendo.
Not the best source to launch a truely ‘independent’ examiniation of the party, unless you are a partisan GOP hack out to perusade us (1) that their really is no big difference between the two major parties and thus we should all vote Republican or (2) America is really not a two-party cartel system and some non-major party movement will bring us to salvation.
The reality is just too nuanced for some people to accept.
(1) The Democrats majority is slim and thus even if all Democrats think alike on gay rights, which they dont, the GOP can still stall bills.
(2) Incumbents tend to like their jobs and thus are mindfull of piss*@# off voters, something that ‘cultural war’ issues often do.
I mean the post was about the patently offensive, blatantly partisan efforts of our “friends” -the Democrat Party leadership- stalling on advancing a gay rights agenda in Congress… instead, tossing the community’s agenda on the slag heap and telling us to wait.
I wonder if the Democrat Party leadership did that to BigLabor or teachers’ unions or blacks, that they’d be willing to “take one for the team” as Democrat leader HarrygReid thinks appropriate?
How long do the gays in the Democrat Party continue to carry water for the Plantation Masters before there’s a slave revolt?
Evidently, a long long time.
posted by Bobby on
“When you go dancing with your shirt off on a floor full of hot, sweating men, which of your non-gay friends are comforming to that gender role?”
—Have you ever watch breeders during spring break? Being shirtless is not big deal. Gay is uber-masculinity, we can do things straight men can only dream off. We are not limited by the constraints of women because we have no women to control us. Women are the enemy of male sexual desire, they are the limiters, they are the rule makers, the game players. We don’t have that problem.
However, dancing shirtless is not a good example, the breeders already do lots of shirtless things in fraternities, the army, etc. The difference is that they can only go so far in their games, while we can go all the way.
posted by NG on
I met two transgendered persons (male-to-female) who said they were the happiest in the lives when they became women.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Ashpenaz is saying, but this logic doesn’t hold either. Plenty of people say they are happiest after going through ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery. That doesn’t mean that these people didn’t have some sort of mental illness or emotional problem that led them to take such drastic measures in the first place.
Technically, being transgender is still a mental illness; ‘gender disphoria’ I do believe is the term.
Source? I would like to know what the psychological community in general thinks about this issue.
posted by Pat on
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Ashpenaz is saying, but this logic doesn’t hold either. Plenty of people say they are happiest after going through ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery. That doesn’t mean that these people didn’t have some sort of mental illness or emotional problem that led them to take such drastic measures in the first place.
NG, I certainly did not mean to imply all transgendered persons have it all together, etc., since I cannot make that claim with people who do not have that issue.
Sure, it’s possible, perhaps probable, that some go through the process of gender reassignment do so as a result of mental illness. I’ll leave that to competent professionals to make that determination for such individuals going through the process.
Since we know that there are men who, instead of being attracted to women as expected, buy who are attracted to men without inherent mental illnesses, I don’t think it’s a big stretch to conclude that there are persons who are born with a gender that they simply don’t identify as. I agree that two people saying they are finally happy isn’t definitive proof, but at least I believe it buttresses my claim.
I am willing to listen to others like Ashpenaz, who believe otherwise, but he hasn’t written anything that comes close to defending his point. We do, however, get irrelevant repititions about his not being feminine or alien abductions.
posted by NG on
Sure, it’s possible, perhaps probable, that some go through the process of gender reassignment do so as a result of mental illness. I’ll leave that to competent professionals to make that determination for such individuals going through the process.
You have a lot more faith in the mental health community than I do. How can anyone possibly make that determination?
I don’t think it’s a big stretch to conclude that there are persons who are born with a gender that they simply don’t identify as.
But what does that even mean? How does one identify with a gender? I identify with being a male because of my “parts,” not because I feel all manly inside of my mind. Your body is part of who you are, not just what goes on inside your head.
The story about the pregnant transgender just confuses the issue even more. How can someone want to be a man but also want to get pregnant?
posted by Pat on
You have a lot more faith in the mental health community than I do. How can anyone possibly make that determination?
Perhaps I do have more faith in the mental health community. But like most things, it is not 100% definitive. I’m sure there are mistakes in judgment regarding this issue. And what compounds it more is all the baggage that comes with someone who believes they identify with the wrong gender. Otherwise, I don’t think the determination is that difficult. I know I am gay, and I know that I identify with being a male.
But what does that even mean? How does one identify with a gender? I identify with being a male because of my “parts,” not because I feel all manly inside of my mind. Your body is part of who you are, not just what goes on inside your head.
I pretty much agree with your statements that follow your questions. But what if a boy or man, despite having the “parts” still identifies more as a woman, and would rather have those “parts” instead?
Another way to look at it. What if you woke up the next day and you had the wrong “parts.” Would you just say, “Oh, that’s nice, now I’ll identify as a woman.” I don’t think I would. If you’re point is that you weren’t born that way and you would have accepted it, maybe so. I have no proof of this, but I’m willing to guess that if this, say, happen to 100 boys at birth, at least 95 would have gender identity issues growing up.
The story about the pregnant transgender just confuses the issue even more. How can someone want to be a man but also want to get pregnant?
Frankly, I didn’t bother commenting on it in the other thread, because I believe it’s a non-issue. I’m not going to make any judgments regarding transgendered persons, and whether they should have rights, etc., based on what one person is doing.
All I can say is that I don’t quite understand it either. Maybe he and his wife wanted a child, and I understand that she couldn’t get pregnant, yet he was still able. So maybe he was willing to go through nine more months of doing a “woman thing,” to have a child. Maybe this was done simply to achieve publicity. Who knows?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here’s the problem–when people look at that picture of the pregnant guy, they say, “That’s what gay is.” And my chance for marriage in Nebraska is set back by many years. Those gays who promote those images on the covers of those magazines really don’t care about gay marriage or gay adoption–they want gays to be subversive and exotic. They say they want me to have marriage, but they sabotage it every chance they get. That’s why I don’t like them.
posted by Bobby on
“Here’s the problem–when people look at that picture of the pregnant guy, they say, “That’s what gay is.” ”
—I agree that a gay magazine breaking the story is bad for PR. However, I think most Americans realize that homosexuality and transexuality are two very different things.
posted by Pat on
I’d also like to think that most Americans are smart enough to not make judgments on a whole group of people based on one person. Otherwise, straight marriage would have been abolished when Britney Spears appeared on a cover of a magazine.
posted by Amicus on
Women are the enemy of male sexual desire…
There are a lot of “regulators”. Should we include gays? I mean, two straight guys can hardly ‘bond’ or do much of anything together, without it getting eroticised by or for gays, increasingly, these days. Even the Pope and his dapper Dan are … “gay”.
the story is bad for PR
How can life itself be bad PR?
The idea that there is some pretty-face route to equality, put forward via a PR campaign is weak.
People can understand that not all gays are alike, just as they know that all Italians are not the same, etc. It simply requires visibility across the spectrum, right?
Gay is masculinity responding to masculinity. …There is no reputable psychologist who believes that transgenderism exists.
“Responding”, eh?
What gives a chuckle is that you seem completely unaware that what you describe as “gay” was defined for a long, long time by “reputable psychologists” as … nothing less than mental illness. Now, you do the same for transgender.
If the struggle has any collective memory, it might be that a rush to judge such differences is may not be terra firma.
posted by Richard on
M&M;
Most members of the House and Senate run on their own platform, based on what they believe will resonate with voters in their district or state.
Once elected, they tend to vote in a manner that will please their voters and financial backers.
The fact that the gay vote is, roughly, 5% of the national vote has an impact when you compare it to other parts of the party’s coalition (racial minorities, and unions).
Your claim that someone LGBT Americans who support the Democratic Party are — in your words — plantation slaves is racist and totally counterproductive.
Who do you suggest they support, and how is insulting them likely to change their minds? The GOP leadership is clearly hostile and third parties ARE NOT A MEANINGFUL CHOICE, absnet of legal reform.
How long do the gays in the Democrat Party continue to carry water for the Plantation Masters before there’s a slave revolt?
Evidently, a long long time.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, nice try at trying to brand me a racist. I’ll be sure to tell my partner of 11 years you think so (pssst, he’s black asian). I doubt there’s any “logic, reason or history” present in your thought process on that wildly bold lie -same claim you made about fundamentalists, I think… no?
Frankly, I think your continued attempt at raising the boogeyman of “GOPs Hate Fags” nonsense is a perfect construction of the GayLeft’s willing sell-out of the gay civil rights agenda to the Democrats’ partisan interests. No progress on your agenda, someone asks why not or calls it to task and you trot out the anti-GOP sentiments. Brilliant! It’s worked once again.
And as the article points out, the GayLeft can’t even get those supposedly “gay friendly” folks in Congress –who have controlled BOTH chambers of Congress for over a year– to advance or embrace the GayLeft’s agenda… like repealing DOMA, like extending federal tax breaks to same sex couples, etc etc etc.
But go ahead and call me a racist. Go ahead and raise up that tried-n-true “scare-em-2-distract-em” line about the GOP is evil… it usually works on those who are still on the Democrat Plantation voting for their Masters… they’ll believe anything!
posted by Ashpenaz on
Take the picture of the pregnant guy. Put it on a billboard in Nebraska during a campaign for gay marriage. Use this caption: “Give people like me the right to marry and adopt!” Now, make a prediction–will the gay marriage amendment win?
If you wouldn’t put that photo on a billboard in Nebraska, why would you put it on the cover of a magazine which puports to support gay marriage?
posted by NG on
But what if a boy or man, despite having the “parts” still identifies more as a woman, and would rather have those “parts” instead?
Again, the questions is WHY does a person think they have the wrong parts? Even if you think that you’d rather be something else, you still have to take a big leap to go as far as have a sex change operation.
My other confusion is why have the operation makes someone feel like another gender. The process is crude at best. Science cannot make a woman into a man. She’ll never know what it is really like to have the body of a man. The same goes for male to female transitions.
However, I think most Americans realize that homosexuality and transexuality are two very different things.
I don’t think that I agree with that. Many seem to lump all non-heterosexual behaviors into one big pile. The militantly anti-gay factions even lump homosexuality with deviant behaviors like bestiality and pedophilia. Why they can’t see the difference between what consenting adults do and rape is beyond me.
I’d also like to think that most Americans are smart enough to not make judgments on a whole group of people based on one person.
Smart enough? Yes. But stories like these are used as lightening rods to rally anti-gay activists to the cause. The media bares some of the blame too because they love to showcase sensational stories rather than show what most gay people are like.
posted by Pat on
Take the picture of the pregnant guy. Put it on a billboard in Nebraska during a campaign for gay marriage. Use this caption: “Give people like me the right to marry and adopt!” Now, make a prediction–will the gay marriage amendment win?
No need to. He already has the right to marry. And apparently, despite a wife who cannot bear children, he and his wife don’t need to go the adoption route.
Again, the questions is WHY does a person think they have the wrong parts?
NG, my guess is the same way one determines sexual attraction. Despite it being “normal” to be attracted to women, I realized LONG before I ever had sex that I was gay. I’m guessing that transgendered go through something similar with gender identity.
Even if you think that you’d rather be something else, you still have to take a big leap to go as far as have a sex change operation.
Agreed. Unlike sexual orientation, which is just a matter or who you are attracted to, and who you’d rather have sex with, there is a lot more with gender identity. Add to that that acceptance of transgendered persons is well behind acceptance of homosexuality, that compounds the problems of transgendered persons.
I don’t think that I agree with that. Many seem to lump all non-heterosexual behaviors into one big pile. The militantly anti-gay factions even lump homosexuality with deviant behaviors like bestiality and pedophilia. Why they can’t see the difference between what consenting adults do and rape is beyond me.
If this was the 70s, I’d agree with you. Sure, people today still lump homosexuality with the other things that are very different, but I still think only the most ignorant of that bunch don’t see them as very different. I won’t bet the rent on that, but perhaps we can agree more if I throw the word “very” out.
Smart enough? Yes. But stories like these are used as lightening rods to rally anti-gay activists to the cause.
And if these people let these anti-gay activists influence them, then so much for being smart enough.
The media bares some of the blame too because they love to showcase sensational stories rather than show what most gay people are like.
Maybe so, but again, people that let the media influence them are the ones to blame. If that happens, then once again, so much for being smart enough. Heck, we’ve seen how the media took a “scream” in 2004 into a mass hysteria by playing it thousands of times.
Like I said, I’d like to think that most Americans are smart enough to not make judgments on a whole group of people based on one person.
posted by NG on
NG, my guess is the same way one determines sexual attraction. Despite it being “normal” to be attracted to women, I realized LONG before I ever had sex that I was gay. I’m guessing that transgendered go through something similar with gender identity.
Sorry, but that doesn’t help me very much. There is a world of difference between saying “I’m attracted to this, not that” and saying “that part isn’t right; I’ll surgically remove it.” I guess I’ll just never understand it.
posted by Pat on
NG, I’m not sure I fully understand it either, but I don’t think the concept is as hard as it’s made out to be.
When I first came out to my younger brother, he did not quite understand the gay thing. In fact, at the time, I hadn’t had sex with anyone. So he questioned how I could be sure I was gay. I tried to explain to him that when he was a teen and he had pictures of naked women on his bedroom walls (yeah, I don’t know how my parents allowed that to happen), I asked him if he could be gay, because he hadn’t had sex by then. He tried to tell me that maybe he could have been, but then I think he got the point.
Sure, it’s different, and perhaps there is a world of difference as you say. But it seems to me that it’s the same basic idea in what you know and feel about yourself, whether or not you’ve acted on it.
Interestingly, a colleague of my brother’s is transgendered (pre-op male to female). When she told him just before she started the process of gender reassignment, he called me and asked me to try to explain it to him. I think I did a good job, but I don’t think it was as convincing as trying to explain homosexuality.
posted by Richard on
Part of the problem, that this conversation brings forth, is the relative social and political invisiblity of transgender people.
Yes, we have seen transgender people on tv, often as villians or on the ‘trashy talk shows’, but little else.
Back when people were talking about ENDA and yelling at each other about buses and running people over, I made a few suggestions that annoyed everyone.
Basically, it came down to a simple question. What needs to happen to make an inclusive ENDA bill viable?
Much of it comes down to ‘the community’ investing some real time, money and support for transgender educators, lobbyists and yes, candidates.
When I made the suggestion that we might try and shoot for something more tanigble (then bus slogans) i.e. transgender candidates in every US House Congressional district, I always get told to keep silent.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t want transgenders to be included under ENDA. Trans is not gay.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I know this is off-topic, but DaleCarpenter’s main article doesn’t seem to be taking comments… and after the string of articles here about how Obama is a better choice for gays than Hillary would be, I wonder how the Obama supporters are taking the latest revelation that Barry O has a problem talking to gay reporters?
http://independencebrawl.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/obama-and-the-gays/
I know, it’s like those pesky low-life Pennsylvanians who are bitter, disgruntled and latching onto religion or guns or anti-immigration politics or racism to expend their anger and frustration (what condescending trash).
Or could it be that Barry O, like slickPonie John Edwards, just doesn’t “feel comfortable around those (gay) people”?
You know, the more I learn about BarryO’s unfiltered ideas and Hillary’s creative memory exercises, I think 08 may be the worst year to pick a presidential candidate because of their “gay-friendly” appearance.